2023-23083. Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 2:23–cv–01843 (E.D. Pa.). On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) has unreasonably delayed taking action following the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's September 3, 2021, order in Case No. 21–1279. That order granted EPA's request to remand to EPA for reconsideration a final rule titled “Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2020). The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to complete its reconsideration of that final rule.

DATES:

Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by November 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2023–0500, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Additional Information about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Derek Mills, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone [phone]; email address [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2023–0500) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.

The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

On December 14, 2020, EPA issued a final rule approving two revisions to Pennsylvania's state implementation plan (SIP) to address certain reasonably available control technology requirements, specifically those related to control techniques guidelines for volatile organic compounds and the addition of regulations controlling volatile organic compounds emissions from industrial cleaning solvents. That final rule was titled “Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” and published at 85 FR 80616 (December 14, 2020) (“Final Rule”).

On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review the Final Rule.^[1] On August 2, 2021, EPA filed a motion for voluntary remand without vacatur in Third Circuit Case No. 21–1279 so that the Agency could reconsider the Final Rule. On September 3, 2021, the Third Circuit granted EPA's motion for voluntary remand without vacatur. To date, EPA has not completed its reconsideration of the Final Rule. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to complete its reconsideration of the Final Rule. Further, if that reconsideration process results in rulemaking, EPA shall, within 15 business days of signature of a notice of a final rule, send the rulemaking package to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2023–0500, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/​dockets/​commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,

Associate General Counsel.

Footnotes

1.   Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, et al., Case No. 21–1279 (3d. Cir.).