Opinion ID: 774771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hall's Petition for Review

Text: 15 Hall timely filed this pro se petition for review. After initial briefing, we asked the EPA and Hall to submit supplemental briefs addressing the nature and scope of the EPA's SIP review responsibility under CAA §§ 110(l). We also directed the EPA to identify any parts of the record that demonstrate that the EPA considered whether the revised new source review program interfere[s] with current requirements. 16 In its supplemental brief, the EPA explained that it approved the Clark County new source review revisions based on the following interpretation of §§ 110(l):If the SIP revision does not relax the existing SIP . . . then the SIP revision does not `interfere' with attainment [or] reasonable further progress . . . requirements and no further inquiry is needed. The EPA reasoned that, if there was no relaxation of air quality regulations, the revision would not exacerbate the existing situation by allowing increased emissions and, consequently the SIP revision would not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment. Because the EPA determined that Clark County's revised new source review rules did not relax the rules that had been approved in 1981, it concluded, without further inquiry, that the revisions would not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress requirements. 17 Because we were uncertain of the source of this interpretation, we requested a brief explaining the agency procedures and sources used in arriving at this interpretation. The EPA represented that the no relaxation standard discussed above served as the basis of other final rules approving and disapproving SIP revisions and that those rules were promulgated in accordance with notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.