Opinion ID: 413378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: De Minimis Exemptions

Text: 129 The final exemption challenged is the de minimis exemption. Section 120 of the Act provides that: 130 [t]he Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, exempt any source from the requirements of this section with respect to a particular instance of noncompliance if he finds that such instance of noncompliance is de minimis in nature and in duration. 131 Sec. 120(a)(2)(C). EPA's regulations, 40 C.F.R. Secs. 66.32, 66.33 (1981), define the phrase de minimis in nature and duration, by setting out those factors EPA will consider in assessing a request for the exemption. These include the magnitude and recurring nature of the violation, the steps being taken to prevent recurrence, the potential economic benefit, the character and impact of the violations, and the duration. Id. Sec. 66.32(c)(1)-(5) (1981). There is also a list of factors to be considered specifically in the case of equipment malfunction. Id. Sec. 66.33 (1981). 132 Industry petitioners argue that the statute limits EPA to two criteria in ruling on an application for noncompliance: the duration and the nature of the incident causing the noncompliance. They claim that if these two criteria are met the EPA Administrator must grant an exemption. Accordingly, they argue that EPA, by specifying additional criteria for the Administrator to consider, has gone beyond its statutory mandate. 133 Petitioners' argument simply turns the statute upside down. The congressional intent is clear that, unlike the exemptions discussed in parts III A and III B of this opinion, the de minimis exemption is discretionary. Whereas the exemptions listed in section 120(a)(2)(B) shall be granted if the requirements are met, the de minimis exemption may be granted if the requirements are met. Congress' intent is also clear from the type of hearing it established. Section 120(b)(5), which applies to the mandatory exemptions in section 120(a)(2)(B), requires the Administrator to provide a hearing on the record. Section 120(a)(2)(C), which applies to the de minimis exemption, merely requires that there be notice and opportunity for public hearing. Moreover, EPA's regulations relate directly to the objectives of the Act and section 120 because they look at the air quality impact and the associated economic benefit of each violation. As such, they are reasonable characterizations of the nature of a violation for determining whether it should be viewed as de minimis. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the EPA's regulations, 40 C.F.R. Secs. 66.32, 66.33 (1981), that deal with the de minimis exemption.