Opinion ID: 185450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Source Definitions

Text: 42 Non-EGU Petitioners further challenge the EPA's reliance upon regulatory definitions of EGUs and non-EGUs that were remanded by this Court in Michigan. There, we found that the EPA changed the definition of EGU in the final NOx SIP Call rule without providing sufficient notice and opportunity to comment. Michigan, 213 F.3d at 692. The altered definition reclassified some non-EGUs as EGUs. This is significant because the EPA assumed that EGUs can reduce more NOx emissions cost effectively, on a percentage basis, than can non-EGUs. The EPA maintains that a new source definition rulemaking is imminent, see Brief for Respondent EPA at 51 (EPA is, in fact, presently reconsidering its EGU definition and intends to issue a proposed rule in the near future, perhaps as early as December 2000.). However, as of oral argument, a year had passed since the Michigan remand and the EPA had yet to initiate new administrative proceedings on source definitions. 43 Non-EGU Petitioners maintain that the EPA's continued reliance on the remanded source definitions requires remanding and vacating the TAs in their entirety because the EPA cannot accurately apply growth factors and calculate state budgets until source categories are final. The EPA contends that Non-EGU Petitioners seek more relief here than they were afforded in Michigan. As the EPA notes, we did not vacate the budgets or any other portion of the NOx SIP Call in Michigan. Instead, we left the budgets in place while EPA reconsidered a handful of narrow issues, including the proper delineation of what constitutes an EGU. It seems that Non-EGU Petitioners are entitled to the same relief here-no more and no less. Therefore, because the EPA did not provide sufficient notice and opportunity to comment for its redefinition of EGUs, 213 F.3d at 693, we remand this portion of the rulemaking to the EPA for further consideration in light of this opinion and that in Michigan.