Opinion ID: 186132
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Late Docketing of Materials

Text: Next, Industry Petitioners assert that, in promulgating the 2000 Rule, EPA improperly relied on documents added to the docket after the close of the comment period and too late for effective rebuttal. While the docket for this rulemaking closed on October 29, 1999, EPA docketed a number of materials in late September 2000, approximately two months 14 See, e.g., Comments of Dutchess and Islip at 2 (J.A. 1832); see also, e.g., Comments of Institute of Clean Air Companies at 1 (J.A. 1917); Comments of Wasatch Clean Air Coalition at 1 (J.A. 1921); Supplemental Comments of Institute of Clean Air Companies at 1 (J.A. 1839). 26 before the rule’s December 6, 2000, publication. Industry Petitioners specifically complain about Document IV–B–5, an EPA-drafted memorandum that set forth EPA’s rationale for eliminating the refractory-nonrefractory distinction. EPA Combustion Group Mem. (docketed Sept. 28, 2000) (J.A. 1801). In this case, as Industry Petitioners concede, all of the documents at issue were docketed by the time the 2000 Rule was promulgated. Hence, EPA did not violate the letter of CAA § 307(d)(6)(C), which bars EPA from basing a rule on data ‘‘which has not been placed in the docket as of the date of [the rule’s] promulgation.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(6)(C). Nevertheless, as petitioners correctly point out, our cases hold that EPA violates ‘‘the structure and spirit of section 307’’ if it ‘‘submit[s] so late as to preclude any effective public comment’’ a document ‘‘vital to EPA’s support for its rule.’’ Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see Small Refiner, 705 F.2d at 540. But Document IV–B–5 is not the kind of document to which our cases refer. Document IV–B–5 expressed EPA’s response to, and agreement with, public comments that it had received indicating there was no significant difference in flue gas flow rates between refractory and nonrefractory units. In effect, then, the memorandum was little more than a statement of the Agency’s response to comments and of its rationale for eliminating the proposed distinction between Classes A and B. It is thus the kind of statement that would ordinarily not appear until the notice of final rulemaking, and the fact that EPA placed it in the docket in advance of that notice cannot be regarded as a procedural defect. See Costle, 657 F.2d at 352–53 (‘‘It is entirely proper and often necessary for the agency to continue its deliberations and internal decisionmaking process after the close of public comment in order to assimilate those comments and arrive at a policy choice.’’).