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

Heading: Controlling, Controlled By, or Under Common Control With

Text: 119 To invoke the inability to comply exemption, a source must show that its inability was entirely beyond not only its own control, but also the control of those entities controlling it. In the language of section 120, the source must show that the inability results from reasons entirely beyond the control of the owner or operator of such source or of any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the owner or operator of such source. Sec. 120(a)(2)(B)(iv). 120 EPA's implementing regulations look to management structure to interpret this requirement. EPA defines control as follows: 121 Control (including the terms controlling, controlled by, and under common control with) means the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person or organization, whether by the ownership of stock, voting rights, by contract, or otherwise. 122 40 C.F.R. Sec. 66.3(f) (1981). The regulations provide that the source must demonstrate inability beyond its own control as well as the control of any affiliated entity. Id. Sec. 66.31(a)(4). Affiliated entity is in turn defined in terms of direct or indirect control: a person who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the owner or operator of a source. Id. Sec. 66.3(b). 123 Petitioners claim that these definitions make no distinction between actual and ostensible control. They argue that it is not clear how much influence constitutes control and that EPA should have defined the terms management and policies. Accordingly, they ask that we vacate and remand the regulations to EPA for an identification of the basis for so broad a definition of control. 124 We disagree. The relevant issue in terms of the inability to comply exemption is fact oriented, focusing on the source's actual use of, or failure to use, its power. It is neither feasible nor desirable to force EPA to define in the abstract regulations for all possible factual circumstances. The question of whether a source, or an affiliated entity, used its power to create its inability to comply or could have so used its power to comply is properly left to the factfinder. Therefore, we affirm the regulations as to these definitions.