Investor Presentaiton
5
system," but EPA "shall permit" States to tailor
standards based on source-specific factors like a facility's
"remaining useful life." Id. § 7411(a)(1), (d)(1). Section
111(d)'s repeated emphasis on state discretion tracks
Congress' finding that air pollution prevention and control
“is the primary responsibility of States and local
governments." Id. § 7401(a)(3). Indeed, EPA may
directly regulate existing sources only if a State fails to
submit or enforce a "satisfactory plan.” Id. § 7411(d)(2).
Section 111's text and context confirm that Congress
had available, on-site controls in mind. See, e.g., 40 Fed.
Reg. 53,340, 53,344 (Nov. 17, 1975) (explaining in preamble
to original Section 111(d) regulations that a "technology-
based approach" allows for source-specific, "meaningful
controls"). Section 111 specifically defines a source
"owner or operator," for instance, 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(5),
but never says that EPA can impose standards of
performance on “owners or operators." Instead, it bars
them from "operat[ing]” a “source” in violation of the
performance standard “applicable to such source."
Id.
§ 7411(e). When numbers-based emission standards are
infeasible, EPA may mandate a "design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard” to accomplish the same
regulatory goals. Id. § 7411(h)(1). And the requirements
for case-specific waivers focus on what individual sources
can achieve, too. Waivers encourage “innovative
technological system[s]" that have not yet been
adequately demonstrated; before issuing one, EPA must
consider "the design, installation, and capital cost of the
technological system or systems.” Id. § 7411(j)(1)(A), (D),
(F).
Given these constraints, EPA correctly expected
Section 111(d) would be narrowly applied, State plans
would "be much less complex" than those under otherView entire presentation