Opinion ID: 186132
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Response to Comments

Text: We next consider Industry Petitioners’ second procedural charge: that EPA failed to respond to significant comments, as required by CAA § 307(d)(6)(B). That provision requires that ‘‘[t]he promulgated rule shall also be accompanied by a response to each of the significant comments TTT submitted in written or oral presentations during the comment period.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(6)(B); see Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (‘‘While we generally uphold the EPA’s authority to make emission projections and set emission limitations accordingly, we do so only where the EPA adequately responded to comments and explained the basis for its decisions.’’). Petitioners assert, first, that EPA failed to respond to comments complaining about the high cost of retrofitting acid gas controls for certain units. This assertion fails on its facts. The Agency did respond to those complaints, explaining that the Clean Air Act does not permit it to take cost into account in setting MACT floors, and that (in its view) the beyond-thefloor standards strike the correct balance between cost and emissions reductions. EPA Response to Comments at 52 (J.A. 2199). Industry Petitioners also claim that EPA failed to respond to comments asserting that § 129(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act bars the Agency from subcategorizing MACT floors on the basis of aggregate plant capacity. We need expend no further effort in analyzing that charge, however, as we have already decided to remand the 2000 Rule to EPA so that the Agency may explain its rationale for such subcategorization. See supra Part II.A.2.a. During the course of that remand, the Agency will have ample opportunity to respond to the cited comments and to cure this procedural failure as well.