Opinion ID: 626372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Replicability”

Text: Petitioners further argue that the EPA lacked the authority to disapprove the PCP Standard Permit based on its view that the permit affords the TCEQ Director too much discretion under certain circumstances. The EPA took issue with this provision of the permit because, in the EPA’s view, it does not include any “replicable” limits on how the Director is to exercise his discretion. In a 17 No. 10-60891 different context, the EPA has defined “replicability” to mean “procedures [that] are sufficiently specific and nonsubjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.” 57 Fed. Reg. 13,498, 13,568 (Apr. 16, 1992) (outlining guidelines for states when developing an overall SIP control strategy). The EPA’s proposed disapproval expressed its objection as follows: “There are no replicable conditions in the PCP Standard Permit that specify how the Director’s discretion is to be implemented.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 48,476. The EPA explained in its final rule that one reason it was disapproving Texas’s PCP Standard Permit is that it “lacks the requisite replicable standardized permit terms specifying how the Director’s discretion is to be implemented for the case-by-case determinations.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 56,447. Petitioners contend that the EPA’s reliance on this rationale was impermissible because there is no applicable provision of the Act or the EPA’s implementing regulations that requires a state’s minor NSR program to include replicable permit conditions.11 11 Petitioners also point out that the lack of “replicable” conditions is not problematic here because the permit only grants the Director the discretion to require more of registrants if he is concerned that a registration will threaten public health or the NAAQS. The provision at issue states: “This standard permit must not be used [if] the executive director determines there are health effects concerns or the potential to exceed a [NAAQS] . . . until those concerns are addressed by the registrant to the satisfaction of the executive director.” 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.617(a)(3)(B). We confess that we are at a loss to comprehend the EPA’s concern. Subsection 116.617(a)(3)(B) in no way jeopardizes the NAAQS. Instead, it safeguards them. It provides a safety valve procedure whereby, in the event a registration should present even the potential of threatening the NAAQS or public health, the Director is authorized to intervene and require the registrant to take additional steps to protect air quality. Moreover, the EPA’s concern about the Director’s discretion is especially perplexing in light of its approval, just seven months before it disapproved Texas’s PCP Standard Permit, of similar Georgia regulations that are less environmentally protective and afford the Georgia director far greater discretion than the Texas Director. See 75 Fed. Reg. 6,309 (Feb. 9, 2010) (approving Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 391–3–1–.03(6)(j) into Georgia’s SIP). Georgia’s regulations exempt PCPs from minor NSR construction permitting. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 391–3–1–.03(6)(j). The EPA approved this provision because it “applies to minor sources only.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 6,312. So too does Texas’s PCP Standard Permit. 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.617(b)(1)(C). The Georgia director has discretion whether or not to require certain ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 391–3–1–.03(2)(c) 18 No. 10-60891 Petitioners are correct. The EPA had no legal basis to demand “replicable” limitations on the Director’s discretion. Not once in its proposed or final disapproval, or in its argument before this court, has the EPA pointed to any applicable provision of the Act or its regulations that includes a “replicability” standard. Moreover, the EPA cannot argue that the lack of replicable conditions would interfere with the NAAQS because, as we have explained, § 116.617(a)(3)(B) can only serve to protect the NAAQS. Thus, the EPA had no statutory basis under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l) to disapprove Texas’s SIP revision because of “replicability” concerns. This straightforward conclusion is unaffected by the EPA’s invocation of an agency policy document, entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” 57 Fed. Reg. 13,498 (Apr. 16, 1992) [hereinafter General Preamble]. The only portion of the rulemaking record that discusses the General Preamble is Section IV.A of the proposed rule, which begins with the heading: “What are the Requirements for EPA’s Review of a Submitted Major NSR SIP Revision?” 74 Fed. Reg. at 48,471–72 (emphasis added). The EPA’s discussion of the PCP Standard Permit appears pages later, in Section VII of the proposed rule, under the heading: “Does the Submitted PCP Standard Permit Meet the Minor NSR SIP Requirements?” Id. at 48,475–76. Thus, it is post hoc rationalization for the EPA now to argue that it relied on the General Preamble in concluding that § 116.617(a)(3)(B)—which indisputably applies only to minor sources—“lacks the requisite replicable standardized terms.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 56,447 (final rule). We must disregard this post hoc rationale. See Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 168–69. Moreover, even if we were to consider the 1992 General Preamble, it (“As a condition for the issuance of an operating permit, the Director may require the applicant to conduct performance tests and monitoring and provide reports concerning operations.”). By contrast, Texas’s detailed reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements are mandatory. See 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 116.617(b)(1), 116.617(e). 19 No. 10-60891 would not change our conclusion that the CAA does not impose a “replicability” standard on minor NSR. We do not owe Chevron deference to the General Preamble because, by its own terms, it does not carry the force of law. See Mead, 533 U.S. at 226–27 (Chevron deference only due agency statutory interpretations “promulgated in the exercise of” the agency’s delegated authority “to make rules carrying the force of law”). The General Preamble states unequivocally that it represents only the “EPA’s preliminary interpretations, and thus do[es] not bind the States and the public as a matter of law.” 57 Fed. Reg. at 13,498. Although Skidmore instructs us to defer to agency interpretations insofar as they are persuasive, see Mead, 533 U.S. at 234–35 (Skidmore deference due agency interpretations that do not qualify for deference under Chevron), in our view the General Preamble’s discussion of “replicability” does not reflect a persuasive interpretation of the provisions of the CAA applicable to minor NSR. As the State of Texas correctly observes in its reply brief, the General Preamble “does not expressly address Minor NSR SIP revisions” and was issued in response to CAA amendments “dealing with SIP requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas” (emphasis in original). Like Texas law and the “similar source” limitation, “replicability” is not a legal standard that the Act authorizes the EPA to enforce when reviewing a state’s minor NSR program. Thus, the EPA acted “in excess of statutory . . . authority,” and thereby violated 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), by disapproving the PCP Standard Permit based on the want of replicable limitations in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.617(a)(3)(B). Moreover, “replicability” was (yet another) “factor[] which Congress has not intended [the EPA] to consider,” meaning the EPA’s reliance on it was (yet again) arbitrary and capricious agency action. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. 20 No. 10-60891