[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66084-66096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24940]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 1, 22, 23, 49, 52, 55, 71, 78, 124, and 222

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0406; FRL-10002-10-OGC]


Modernizing the Administrative Exhaustion Requirement for 
Permitting Decisions and Streamlining Procedures for Permit Appeals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a 
procedural rule intended to streamline and modernize part of the 
Agency's permitting process by creating a new, time-limited alternative 
dispute resolution process (ADR process) as a precondition to judicial 
review. Under this proposal, the parties in the ADR process may agree 
by unanimous consent to either extend the ADR process or proceed with 
an appeal before the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). If the parties 
don't agree to proceed with either the ADR process or an EAB appeal, 
the permit would become final and could be challenged in federal court. 
EPA also proposes to amend the current appeal process to clarify the 
scope and standard of EAB review, remove a provision authorizing 
participation in appeals by amicus curiae, and eliminate the EAB's 
authority to review Regional permit decisions on its own initiative, 
even absent an appeal. To promote internal efficiencies, EPA also 
proposes to establish a 60-day deadline for the EAB to issue a final 
decision once an appeal has been fully briefed and argued and to limit 
the length of EAB opinions to only as long as necessary to address the 
issues raised in an appeal; EPA also proposes to limit the availability 
of extensions to file briefs. The proposed rule would apply to permits 
issued by or on behalf of EPA under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and 
Recovery Act. In addition to these permit appeal reforms, EPA proposes 
several additional reforms designed to provide tools to better allow 
the Administrator to exercise his or her statutory authority together 
with appropriate checks and balances on how the Board exercises its 
delegated authority. In this vein, EPA proposes to set twelve-year 
terms for EAB Judges, which the Administrator may renew at the end of 
that twelve-year period or reassign the Judge to another position 
within EPA. EPA also proposes a new process to identify which EAB 
opinions will be considered precedential. Finally, EPA proposes a new 
mechanism by which the Administrator, by and through the General 
Counsel, can issue a dispositive legal interpretation in any matter 
pending before the EAB.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2019-0406, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Talty, Office of General Counsel, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

[[Page 66085]]

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 564-2751; email 
address: staff_ogc@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be 
CBI electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Send 
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address 
using U.S. Postal Service: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Docket Center, EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-2751, Mail Code 2310A, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. For other methods of delivery, see 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to 
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that 
does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly 
that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
II. Background
    A. The Evolving Role of the EAB in Permit Appeals
    B. What are the major permitting functions of the EAB?
    C. What is the current process for permit appeals to the 
Environmental Appeals Board?
III. Summary of Today's Proposal
    A. What are the key elements of this proposal?
    1. New Time-Limited ADR Process
    2. Clarifying the EAB's Scope and Standard of Review in Permit 
Appeals
    3. Eliminating Amicus Curiae Participation
    4. Eliminating Sua Sponte Review
    5. Expediting the Appeal Process
    6. 12-Year Terms for EAB Judges
    7. Identifying Precedential EAB Decisions
    8. Administrator's Legal Interpretations
    9. Conforming Revisions
    B. How would today's proposal affect pending appeals?
    C. Why is EPA undertaking this reform?
    D. What provisions of the CFR is EPA proposing to revise?
    E. What regulatory text has EPA included in this proposal?
IV. Request for Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Orders

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This proposed procedural rule would not regulate any person or 
entity outside EPA. This proposal would modify the process relevant to 
certain administrative appeals handled by the EAB under 40 CFR 124.19 
and other regulations listed below. It may be of interest to persons 
and entities that apply for or are interested in challenging EPA 
permitting decisions under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) program of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, and the Resources 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including Remedial Action Plans, 
40 CFR 270.42(f) & 270.155. It may also be of interest to persons or 
entities interested in challenging EPA permitting decisions under the 
Clean Air Act, including Outer Continental Shelf permits, 40 CFR 
55.6(a)(3); Title V permits, 40 CFR 71.11(l); Acid Rain permits, 40 CFR 
78.3(b)(1); Tribal Major Non-Attainment NSR permits, 40 CFR 
49.172(d)(5); and Tribal Minor NSR permits, 40 CFR 49.159(d).
    In addition, any person or entity interested in EPA's 
administrative processes may be interested in this proposal. With 
exception of section III.A.7 (Administrator's Legal Interpretations), 
nothing in this proposal affects the EAB's adjudication of enforcement 
appeals.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    This is a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. 
Although not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Agency nonetheless voluntarily seeks 
comment because it believes that the information and opinions supplied 
by the public will inform the Agency's views. To this end, EPA solicits 
information and comment from the public on EPA's proposal to streamline 
part of EPA's permitting process.
    Each proposal is identified immediately below and described in 
Section III.
    First, EPA solicits comment on a proposal to create a new, time-
limited ADR process, resulting in a fundamental change to the Agency's 
long-held administrative exhaustion requirements. Any interested party 
seeking judicial review of an EPA permit would have to participate in 
this new process before filing a petition in federal court. Under this 
new process, the parties would have the choice, by unanimous consent, 
to extend the ADR process or proceed to an appeal before the EAB.
    Second, EPA solicits comment on a proposal to clarify the scope and 
standard of the EAB's review. Under the current regulations, the EAB 
reviews petitions for a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is 
clearly erroneous. 40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(A). However, the current 
regulations also include a provision that provides that the EAB may 
review of an exercise of discretion ``or an important policy 
consideration.'' 40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(B). This has led to some 
confusion as to whether a petitioner may ask the EAB--standing in the 
Administrator's shoes--to address issues that a federal court generally 
could not review, such as whether EPA properly exercised its discretion 
relative to an ``important policy consideration.'' In any event, to the 
extent 40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(B) suggests that the EAB may review EPA's 
compliance with discretionary policies, EPA is proposing to eliminate 
that provision and clarify that the EAB's scope and standard of review 
is limited to findings of fact and conclusions of law that are clearly 
erroneous.
    Third, EPA solicits information and comment on a proposal to remove 
40 CFR 124.19(e), which currently authorizes interested persons to 
participate in a permit appeal as amicus curiae. Under today's 
proposal, the EAB would no longer accept amicus curiae briefs.
    Fourth, EPA also solicits comment on a proposal to eliminate the 
EAB's authority to review Regional permit decisions on its own 
initiative (sua sponte), even absent a private party appeal. In EPA's 
experience, the EAB rarely invokes this authority, and to exercise it 
now could impede timely permitting.
    Fifth, EPA solicits comment on a proposal to establish a 60-day 
deadline for the EAB to issue a final decision once an appeal has been 
fully briefed and argued. EPA also solicits information and comment on 
a proposal to limit the availability of filing extensions to one 
request per party, with a maximum extension of 30 days. (Nothing in the 
proposed rule would modify the EAB's discretion to relax or suspend 
filing requirements for good cause.)
    Sixth, EPA solicits comment on a proposal to set twelve-year terms 
for

[[Page 66086]]

EAB Judges, which the Administrator may renew at the end of that 
twelve-year period or reassign the Judge to another position within 
EPA.
    Seventh, EPA solicits comment on a proposal to establish a 
mechanism by which the Administrator, by and through the General 
Counsel, can issue a dispositive legal interpretation in any matter 
pending before the EAB or on any issue addressed by the EAB.
    The new ADR process and the revised permit appeal procedures apply 
only to permitting decisions under:
     The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) program of the Clean Water Act;
     The Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection 
Control (UIC) program;
     The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 
including Remedial Action Plans, 40 CFR 270.42(f) & 270.155; and
     The Clean Air Act, including Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permits, Outer Continental Shelf permits, 40 CFR 
55.6(a)(3); Title V permits, 40 CFR 71.11(l); Acid Rain permits, 40 CFR 
78.3(b)(1); Tribal Major Non-Attainment NSR permits, 40 CFR 
49.172(d)(5); and Tribal Minor NSR permits, 40 CFR 49.159(d).

In particular, the new ADR process and procedural changes in this 
proposal would not apply to other types of appeals not listed above. 
Those topics are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Specifically, 
EPA does not solicit comment on the EAB's enforcement functions. In 
addition, with the exception of the proposed revisions above, nothing 
in this proposal would alter the mechanics of permit appeals or the 
process by which parties interact with the EAB, e.g., service 
requirements. Those issues are also outside the scope of this 
rulemaking and EPA does not solicit comment on them.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA's authority to issue this proposed procedural rule is contained 
in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; Safe 
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.; Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. EPA has 
additional authority under the Federal Housekeeping Statute, 5 U.S.C. 
301, which authorizes an agency head to prescribe regulations governing 
his or her department and the performance of its business, among other 
purposes.

II. Background

A. The Evolving Role of the Environmental Appeals Board in Permit 
Appeals

    The EAB was created in 1992 to hear, among other things, 
administrative appeals of enforcement proceedings and EPA-issued 
permits. The purpose of its creation was to formally transfer the 
Administrator's authority over such appeals to the new Board in an 
effort to address the Agency's expanding enforcement docket and an 
increase in EPA-issued permits.
    Over the past 27 years, the EAB's role in permit appeals has 
changed as more states and tribes have assumed permitting authority 
under EPA's statutes. For example, 47 states and one territory have 
assumed authority to administer NPDES permits under the Clean Water 
Act. In the context of RCRA, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and 
Guam have been authorized to implement either all or parts of state 
hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA subtitle C. Under the Clean 
Air Act, 43 states fully administer the PSD program, and EPA has 
approved Title V permit programs in all 50 states. As discussed later 
in this document, the EAB does not hear challenges to most state-issued 
permits.
    As more states and tribes have assumed authority, the Agency has 
dramatically reduced the number of EPA-issued permits and, in turn, the 
number of permits appealed to the EAB. Since January 1, 2016, a total 
of 50 permit appeals have been filed with the EAB affecting a total of 
40 permits.
    In 2010, the EAB launched a voluntary ADR program to assist parties 
in resolving disputes before the EAB, including permit appeals. The EAB 
established this ADR program to promote faster resolution of issues and 
more creative, satisfying and enduring solutions; to foster a culture 
of respect and trust among EPA, its stakeholders, and its employees and 
to improve working relationships; to promote compliance with 
environmental laws and regulations; to expand stakeholder support for 
Agency programs; and to promote better environmental outcomes. The 
EAB's ADR program currently offers parties the option of participating 
in ADR with the assistance of an EAB Judge acting as a neutral 
evaluator/mediator (generally referred to as the Settlement Judge). The 
ADR program has been highly successful, and, to date, over 90% of the 
cases that have gone through the program have been resolved without 
litigation. See The EPA's Environmental Appeals Board at Twenty-five: 
An Overview of the Board's Procedures, Guiding Principles, and Record 
of Adjudicating Cases, p. 5 available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/
EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/8f612ee7fc725edd852570760071cb8e/
381acd4d3ab4ca358525803c00499ab0/$FILE/The%20EAB%20at%20Twenty-
Five.pdf. Since its inception, the ADR Program has helped parties 
achieve faster resolution of issues, enduring solutions, and broader 
support for outcomes. Id.

B. What are the major permitting functions of the Environmental Appeals 
Board?

    Under the current regulations, the EAB has jurisdiction over three 
categories of permit-related actions, and an appeal to the EAB is a 
prerequisite for judicial review of the permit. (Prior to 1992, appeal 
to the Administrator was a prerequisite for judicial review of permits 
issued by Regional Administrators.)
    The first category consists of appeals of federal permitting 
decisions by Regional Administrators under the Clean Air Act (PSD, 
Title V, Outer Continental Shelf, and some acid rain program permits), 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (UIC permits), the Clean Water Act (NPDES 
permits) and RCRA permits. Appeals under RCRA include decisions to deny 
a permit for the active life of a hazardous waste management facility 
or unit. This category also includes appeals by of Clean Air Act 
permits issued by states in certain circumstances.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In some permitting programs, EPA regulations provide 
authority for EPA to delegate the administration of the federal 
permitting program to a state or tribal administrative agency. See, 
e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(u); 40 CFR 71.10. This delegation empowers the 
delegated agency to ``stand in the shoes'' of an EPA Regional Office 
and exercise federal law authority. But the action taken by the 
delegate remains a federal permitting decision subject to review in 
the Environmental Appeals Board. This relationship is distinct from 
an EPA-approved or authorized permitting program under which a state 
agency applies state laws and regulations that EPA has determined 
are sufficient to meeting the minimum programs requirements for such 
a permitting program. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.166; 40 CFR part 70. 
State permitting decisions under an EPA-approved program is an 
action under state law that is reviewable under any applicable state 
administrative procedures and in state courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of PSD permits, the entire process--from the 
determination that an application is complete to a final decision to 
grant or deny a permit application--must occur within one year by 
statutory mandate. 42 U.S.C. 7475(c); see Avenal Power Center LLC v. 
EPA, 787 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011). Nothing in today's proposal would 
affect that statutory obligation.
    The second category consists of appeals of Clean Air Act NSR 
permits

[[Page 66087]]

issued by EPA in Indian Country. The third category consists of 
terminations of NPDES, RCRA and Marine Protection, Research, and 
Sanctuaries Act permits. Under 40 CFR 124(l), the EAB's decision and 
the Regional Administrator's subsequent issuance of the permit 
constitutes final agency action.
    These permit-related functions are listed below, accompanied by the 
parts of the Code of Federal Regulations where they currently appear.

Appeals from NPDES permit decisions made by Regional Administrators and 
Administrative Law Judges under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR part 124).
Appeals from permit decisions and remedial action plan (RAP) approvals 
made by Regional Administrators under RCRA (40 CFR part 124; 40 CFR 
270.42(f) & 270.155).
Appeals from PSD permit decisions made by Regional Administrators and 
delegated states under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR part 124; 40 CFR 
52.21(q)).
Appeals from Title V operating permit decisions made by Regional 
Administrators and delegated states under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 
71.11(l)).
Appeals of Outer Continental Shelf permit decisions made by Regional 
Administrators (40 CFR part 124; 40 CFR 55.6(a)(3)).
Appeals from certain acid rain permitting decisions made by Regional 
Administrators (40 CFR 78.3(b)(1)).
Appeals from UIC permit decisions made by Regional Administrators under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR part 124).
Appeals from ocean dumping permit decisions made by Regional 
Administrators under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act (40 CFR part 222).
Appeals from Federal Major Non-Attainment New Source Review permit 
decisions by Regional Administrators in Indian County under the Clean 
Air Act (40 CFR 49.172(d)).
Appeals from Federal Minor New Source Review permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators in Indian Country under the Clean Air Act (40 
CFR 49.159(d)).
Appeals from the terminations of NPDES and RCRA permits and RAPs (40 
CFR 22.44).

C. What is the current process for permit appeals to the Environmental 
Appeals Board?

    Any person who participated in the permit public participation 
process, either by filing comments on the draft permit or by speaking 
at a public hearing, may petition the EAB for review. 40 CFR 
124.19(a)(2). In addition, anyone may petition the EAB for review of a 
permit condition that reflects changes from the draft. Id. A petition 
for review must be filed within thirty days after service of notice of 
the issuance of a permit decision and must identify the contested 
permit condition or other challenge to the permit decision and clearly 
set forth the petitioner's contentions, with appropriate support, as to 
why the Board should review the decision. Id. at Sec.  124.19(a)(4). A 
petitioner must demonstrate that each issue raised in the petition was 
previously raised during the public comment period, or at a public 
hearing. Id. In order to prevail, a petitioner must show that each 
challenged permit condition is based on ``[a] finding of fact or 
conclusion of law that is clearly erroneous'' or ``[a]n exercise of 
discretion or an important policy consideration that the Environmental 
Appeals Board should, in its discretion, review.'' Id. Sec.  
124.19(a)(4)(i). Generally, the EPA Region--or other authority acting 
on EPA's behalf--that issued the permitting decision must file a 
response to a petition for review together with a certified index of 
the administrative record and relevant portions of the record within 30 
days after service of the petition. Id. at Sec.  124.19(b)(2). In the 
case of PSD or other new source permit appeals, the Agency has 21 days 
to file its response. Id. at Sec.  124.19(b)(1). A permit applicant who 
did not appeal a permit decision may also file a notice of appearance 
and respond to a petition, as may a state or tribal authority where a 
permitted facility is (or is proposed to be) located. Id. Sec.  
124.19(b)(3) through (4). Any other interested person may also 
participate in the appeal by filing an amicus brief. Id. Sec.  
124.19(e).
    Once the EAB has received a petition for review of a permit, the 
Clerk of the Board assigns the matter to a panel of judges using a 
neutral case assignment system. The EAB typically hears matters before 
it in three-member panels, with the fourth member of the EAB available 
to serve as a settlement judge in the event the parties opt to 
participate in the EAB's ADR program. See id. Sec.  1.25(e)(1). The 
panel decides each matter before it ``in accordance with applicable 
statutes and regulations'' and considers the standard of review, prior 
EAB precedents, Agency policy it deems relevant, and the evidence in 
the record. Id. at Sec. Sec.  1.25, 22.30(d), 124.19(h). When 
appropriate, the EAB hears oral argument on any or all issues in a 
proceeding. Id. at 124.19(h). The regulations specify that the EAB 
shall decide matters by majority vote. Id. at Sec.  1.25. The EAB 
issues its opinions in writing, and the Regional Administrator's 
subsequent issuance of the permit consistent with the opinion 
constitutes final agency action.
    Currently, under the EAB's ADR Program, parties to an appeal are 
invited to participate in ADR with the assistance of an EAB Judge 
acting as a neutral evaluator/mediation (referred to as the 
``Settlement Judge''). An EAB staff attorney (referred to as ``EAB 
Settlement Counsel'') is often assigned to assist the Settlement Judge. 
Each party to the appeal must agree to participate in ADR for the case 
to proceed under the Program, which is often referred to as an ``opt-
in'' ADR process. If all parties agree to proceed with ADR, an EAB 
Judge is assigned as the Settlement Judge, and the appeal proceedings 
are stayed for 60 days. The Settlement Judge contacts the parties for a 
status conference, followed by submission of issue summaries within 10 
days of the status conference and an initial ADR meeting at which the 
parties begin the case evaluation/mediation process.
    The ADR process may be terminated and the case returned to the 
EAB's active docket if: (1) The Settlement Judge, at any point 
following his or her designation, determines, in his or her discretion, 
that ADR is no longer appropriate; (2) the Settlement Judge, in his or 
her discretion, determines that the ADR process has not made 
substantial progress within the stay period; or (3) any party 
determines that it no longer wishes to participate in ADR. If a matter 
is returned to the EAB's active docket, the Settlement Judge and the 
EAB Settlement Counsel are prohibited from participating in any way in 
the EAB's resolution.
    If the parties reach an acceptable resolution to all or part of 
their dispute, the parties must create a written agreement signed by 
each party. Upon execution of any agreement resolving all issues, the 
parties then file a joint motion to dismiss the pending matter. The EAB 
then issues an order dismissing the appeal. If some, but not all issues 
are resolved, and the issues are severable, the parties must file a 
motion for dismissal of the resolved issues. The EAB then issues an 
order returning the remaining issues to the EAB's active docket for 
resolution.

[[Page 66088]]

III. Summary of Today's Proposal

A. What are the key elements of this proposal?

1. New Time-Limited ADR Process
    EPA proposes to create a new, time-limited ADR process and 
participation in that process would be a precondition to judicial 
review in federal court. Under the current regulations, an interested 
party must file a petition for review with the EAB as a precondition to 
judicial review. See 40 CFR 124.19(l). Once the appeal process has 
begun, parties to an appeal may ``opt-in'' to the EAB's ADR program to 
resolve the dispute without litigating the issues before a panel of EAB 
Judges. EPA is seeking to leverage the success of the EAB's current ADR 
program and empower the parties to decide for themselves the best, most 
efficient process to resolve their disputes.
    Under this proposal, the EAB's ADR program would be switched from 
an opt-in process to an opt-out process conducted in compliance with 
the confidentiality provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution 
Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 574. Under the proposed process, an interested 
person would have thirty days after service of notice of the issuance 
of a permit decision to file a notice of dispute with the EAB in which 
the interested person identifies the contested permit condition or 
other specific challenge to the permit decision. The notice of dispute 
would also need to certify that the party filed comments on the draft 
permit or participated in a public hearing on the draft permit or that 
the disputed conditions in the final permit reflect changes from the 
proposed draft permit. The party filing the notice would have to serve 
the notice on the Regional Administrator that issued the permitting 
decision, the permit applicant, as well as the state or tribal 
authority where the permitted facility is (or is proposed to be) 
located. The Regional Administrator would be required to file its 
response to a notice within 21 days after service of the notice of 
dispute. A permit applicant who did not dispute a permit decision may 
file a notice of appearance and a response, as may the relevant state 
or tribal authority, within the same 21-day period.
    Upon receipt of the notice of dispute, the Clerk of the EAB would 
assign an EAB Judge to act as the Settlement Judge. The Settlement 
Judge would have thirty days from the deadline for filing a response to 
convene a meeting of all the parties. Each party would be required to 
file issue summaries with the Settlement Judge no later than ten days 
prior to the convening meeting. At the convening meeting, each party 
would be required to meet with the Settlement Judge in a private 
session in which the Settlement Judge would provide the party with a 
confidential, oral assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their 
case. Information discussed in the private sessions would be 
confidential unless a party authorizes the Settlement Judge to disclose 
it. At the conclusion of the convening meeting, or no later than thirty 
days after the deadline to file a response, the parties may decide by 
unanimous consent to either extend the ADR process (beyond the initial 
thirty-day window) or proceed with an appeal before the EAB. The 
Regional Administrator would not be considered a party for purposes of 
this unanimous agreement, meaning the Regional Administrator would not 
have a say in how the parties decide to proceed. EPA is proposing to 
make any agreement of the parties issue-specific, meaning only those 
issues or conditions that all parties agree to resolve via further ADR 
or EAB review continue through the process. However, EPA solicits 
comment on whether the parties' agreement should apply to all issues 
raised in the notice of dispute. All parties would be required to 
attend and participate in the convening meeting as a prerequisite to 
seeking judicial review in federal court. If the parties do not agree 
to proceed with either the ADR process or an EAB appeal, the notice of 
dispute would be dismissed, the permit would become final and it could 
be challenged in federal court. Lastly, any issues that are raised in 
notice of dispute process but do not continue beyond the initial 
thirty-day period would be preserved for appeal but may not be 
challenged in federal court until the remaining administrative process 
concludes. Again, EPA solicits comment on whether all issues raised in 
the notice of dispute should be required to continue through the ADR 
process or EAB appeal rather than only those issues or conditions that 
all parties agree should proceed. If promulgated, the new ADR process 
would apply only to any permit decision issued on or after the 
effective date of the procedural rule. The proposal would not apply to 
any current permit appeals.
2. Clarifying the EAB's Scope and Standard of Review in Permit Appeals
    The current regulations establish a ``clearly erroneous'' standard 
of review and direct petitioners to demonstrate that ``each challenge 
to the permit is based on . . . a finding of fact or conclusion of law 
that is clearly erroneous.'' 40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(A). However, the 
current regulations also include a paragraph that provides that the EAB 
may review of an exercise of discretion ``or an important policy 
consideration.'' 40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(B). This has led to some 
confusion as to whether a petitioner may ask the EAB--standing in the 
Administrator's shoes--to address issues that a federal court generally 
could not review, such as whether EPA properly exercised its discretion 
relative to an ``important policy consideration.'' To the extent that 
40 CFR 124.19(a)(4)(i)(B) authorizes the EAB to review EPA's compliance 
with discretionary policies, EPA proposes to eliminate that provision. 
In doing so, EPA intends to make clear that while the EAB's scope of 
review would no longer include exercises of discretion or important 
policy considerations, nothing in this proposal would alter the 
standard of review employed by the EAB in adjudicating permit.
3. Eliminating Amicus Curiae Participation
    EPA proposes to eliminate the provision at 40 CFR 124.19(e) that 
authorizes interested persons to participate in a permit appeal as 
amicus curiae. Under today's proposal, the EAB would no longer accept 
amicus curiae briefs in permit appeals.
    Under the current regulations, any interested person can appeal an 
EPA permit to the EAB; therefore, the amicus curiae process allowed the 
EAB to consider additional views in support of or opposition to the 
Region's permit. As discussed above, EPA proposes to create a new ADR 
process that would be a prerequisite to seeking judicial review in 
federal court. EPA believes that this new process would be the proper 
forum for parties to resolve disputes over Agency permits and that 
allowing for additional input in a permit appeal, should the parties 
choose to proceed in such a manner, is unnecessary. Moreover, 
eliminating amicus curiae briefs is consistent with the proposed 
streamlining of the EAB permit appeal process. By eliminating amicus 
briefs, EPA proposes to hasten the resolution of permit appeals by 15 
days, see 40 CFR 124.19(e), and to simplify the process. All members of 
the public are encouraged to submit comments on draft EPA permits, and 
the Regions consider those comments when making permit decisions. This 
is meaningful public engagement that has the potential to shape the 
permit before it is appealed to the EAB. Moreover, the public comments 
coupled with the Region's

[[Page 66089]]

responses become part of the permit's administrative record. EPA 
believes that the availability of these comments, coupled with the 
vigorous briefing by the permit applicant, the Region, and other 
parties will ensure that the EAB becomes aware of any issues or 
positions that might otherwise be raised by amici. Under these 
circumstances, the benefits of expeditious resolution of appeals 
outweigh any benefits associated with amici participation.
4. Eliminating Sua Sponte Review
    The current regulations authorize the EAB to decide on its own 
initiative to review any condition of any RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD 
permit decision for which review is otherwise available. Today's 
proposal would eliminate this provision. Allowing sua sponte review by 
the EAB would be inconsistent with the Agency's goal of empowering the 
parties of a permit dispute to dictate the process they believe will 
most effectively and efficiently resolve their dispute.
5. Expediting the Appeal Process
    EPA proposes several additional changes to the appeal process that 
are intended to expedite resolution of appeals, should the parties 
choose to proceed with an EAB appeal. First, EPA proposes to establish 
a deadline of 60 days for the EAB to issue a final decision, measured 
from the date of oral argument or the filing of the last brief, 
whichever is later. This deadline demonstrates EPA's commitment to 
making permits final and effective expeditiously. It also should be 
achievable, in light of the EAB's reduced workload contemplated by this 
proposed rule.
    Second, in light of the proposed 60-day deadline, EPA proposes to 
limit the length of EAB opinions by advising the Board to make them 
only as long as needed to address the specific issues raised in the 
appeal. EPA solicits comment on whether to set a numerical limit, 
either in words or pages.
    In the third time-saving change, EPA proposes to revise the 
provisions in the current regulations relating to extensions of time to 
file briefs. The regulations at 40 CFR 124.19(g) authorize parties to 
seek such extensions. A review of motion practice before the EAB 
reveals that much of the delay in resolving appeals stems from frequent 
and lengthy extensions requested by the parties. Today's proposal would 
authorize each party to request a one-time 30-day extension that the 
EAB, in the exercise of its discretion, may choose to grant. Nothing in 
the proposed rule would eliminate the EAB's discretion to relax or 
suspend filing requirements for good cause. See 40 CFR 124.19(n).
6. 12-Year Terms for EAB Judges
    The EAB is a permanent body with continuing functions established 
by regulation. It exercises authority expressly delegated to it from 
the Administrator by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 
CFR 1.25(e)(2). The EAB is composed of no more than four judges 
designated by the Administrator, 40 CFR 1.25(e)(1), but all positions 
need not be filled depending on the work load before the Board. By 
custom, EAB Judges are career employees of EPA and members of the 
Senior Executive Service (SES).
    Over the years, the Agency has benefited from the arrival of new 
judges to fill vacancies created as former judges retire or move to 
other senior executive positions. Since 2012, eight different judges 
have served on the EAB, bringing with them experience from the Offices 
of the Regional Counsel, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance and other Federal agencies, 
including the U.S. Department of Justice. For judges joining the EAB 
since January 1, 2012, the average term of service is four years.
    At the same time, the Agency has benefited from judges who have 
served on the Environmental Appeals Board for much longer terms. These 
judges bring deep experience in EAB jurisprudence and provide needed 
stability in light of frequent vacancies. Of the twelve judges who have 
served on the EAB since its creation in 1992, four of the first five 
EAB judges held their positions for nine to 21 years. One judge has 
served for 24 years.
    In today's document, EPA proposes to set fixed twelve-year terms 
for EAB Judges, which the Administrator may renew at the end of that 
twelve-year period or reassign the Judge to another position within 
EPA. EPA solicits comment on whether eight-year terms are more 
appropriate. EPA also solicits comment on whether any other term length 
is more appropriate. The Administrator would apply the new twelve-year 
terms to the current EAB judges on a rolling basis over the next twelve 
years. Each seat on the EAB would be designated a number based on the 
seniority of the Board's current members. The seat of the longest 
serving judge would be designated as seat one, the second longest 
serving judge as seat two, the third longest serving judge as seat 
three, and the most recent judge as seat four. The term for the newly 
designated seat one would end three years after the effective date of 
the final rule. The process would then continue at three-year 
intervals, with seat two ending six years after the effective date, 
seat three ending nine years after the effective date, and seat four 
ending twelve years after the effective date. Thereafter, all terms 
will last for twelve years. If a judge vacates his or her position 
before the end of the judge's term, the Administrator would appoint a 
new judge to serve for the remainder of the vacated term. That new 
member could then be renewed at the end of the vacated term. For 
example, assume the term of the judge holding seat two ends in 2026, 
subject to renewal. Further assume that this judge retires in 2020. The 
new judge occupying seat two would serve for six years (until 2026) and 
then be eligible for a twelve-year term renewal. But assume this judge 
leaves after five years in 2025. The newest judge occupying seat two 
would serve for one year (until 2026) and then be eligible for twelve-
year term renewal. There would be no limit to the number of twelve-
years terms that one judge could serve. EPA also solicits comment on 
whether a different process for retention of EAB Judges is more 
appropriate.
    If the Administrator chooses not to renew the appointment, the 
Administrator would assign that judge to another SES position within 
EPA for which he or she qualifies, in compliance with all applicable 
procedures. (As members of the SES, EAB judges are subject to 
reassignment to any other SES position in the Agency for which he or 
she qualifies, after approval from OPM and the Office of Presidential 
Personnel. See Guide to the Senior Executive Service, published by the 
Office of Personnel Management (March 2017), pages 8, 10. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/referencematerials/guidesesservices.pdf. See also 5 U.S.C. 3131(5) (SES 
program shall be administered so as to enable the head of an agency to 
reassign senior executives to best accomplish the agency's mission).
    In EPA's experience, EAB judges have left their appointments either 
to retire from federal service or to take another position within EPA 
or elsewhere. Nothing in this process would prevent a judge from 
leaving the EAB before the expiration of his or her twelve-year term. 
Similarly, nothing in this process prevents the Administrator from 
reassigning an EAB judge to another position prior to the expiration of 
his or her renewable twelve-year term.

[[Page 66090]]

7. Identifying Precedential EAB Decisions
    EPA is soliciting comment on whether it should create a process to 
explicitly identify certain decisions of the EAB as precedential. Under 
such a process, only published decisions could be considered 
precedential. The determination of which decisions should be published 
would be determined by the Administrator acting through the General 
Counsel.
    Other federal agencies that utilize adjudicatory hearings have 
similar processes for identifying precedential decisions. For instance, 
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
designate certain decisions as ``precedent decisions'' in various 
immigration proceedings. Under their process, ``precedent decisions'' 
are administrative decisions of the Administrative Appeals Office, the 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the Attorney General, which are 
selected and designated as precedent by the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security, the BIA, and the Attorney General, respectively. 
Identifying certain decision as precedential is important because 
federal courts give greater deference to such decisions. For that 
reason, EPA is soliciting comment on whether the Agency should 
affirmatively designate certain EAB decisions as precedential.
8. Administrator's Legal Interpretations
    EPA proposes a new mechanism by which the Administrator, by and 
through the General Counsel, can issue a dispositive legal 
interpretation in any matter before the EAB or on any issue addressed 
by the EAB. This legal interpretation would be binding on the EAB. 
Under this proposal, the General Counsel may file written notice to the 
EAB providing the Administrator's legal interpretation of an applicable 
Agency regulation or governing statute in any matter before the EAB; 
this proposal is not limited just to permit appeals. This new mechanism 
is distinguished from legal briefs filed by EPA's Regions, which simply 
set forth the Agency's position on any relevant legal interpretations. 
The intent of this proposal is to allow the Administrator, in specific 
cases, to retain authority as it pertains to legal interpretations. 
Nothing in this proposal would limit the Administrator's existing 
authority (derived from his or her statutory authority to issue the 
permits in the first instance) to review or change any EAB decision.
9. Conforming Revisions
    EPA also proposes conforming changes to regulatory text to 
implement the objectives described above.

B. How would today's proposal affect pending appeals?

    If promulgated as proposed, today's revisions would not apply to 
appeals that had been filed with the EAB before the effective date of 
any final rule codifying such revisions.

C. Why is EPA undertaking this reform?

    EPA has an almost 20-year history of promoting the expanded use of 
ADR to address disputes and resolve conflict. See EPA's Policy on 
Alternative Dispute Resolution, 65 FR 81,858 (Dec. 27, 2000). The 
Agency has long recognized that ADR techniques can have many benefits, 
including faster resolution of issues; more creative, satisfying and 
enduring solutions; fostering a culture of respect and trust among EPA, 
its stakeholders, and its employees; improving working relationships; 
promoting compliance with environmental laws and regulations; expanding 
stakeholder support for Agency programs; and promoting better 
environmental outcomes. Id. at 81,858-59. The EAB instituted its ADR 
program in 2010 in recognition of these many benefits and the success 
experienced by other federal agencies and by federal courts (including 
appellate courts) in settling contested matters through ADR. As noted 
above, the EAB's ADR program has been highly successful with over 
ninety percent of the cases that have gone through the program resolved 
without litigation.
    EPA is seeking to build off the success of the EAB's ADR program by 
creating a new process that will ensure speedy resolution of disputes 
while providing the interested parties with options to achieve those 
ends. Under this proposal, the EAB's ADR program would switch to an 
opt-out process by requiring all parties to convene with an EAB Judge 
acting as a Settlement Judge. EPA believes the parties can greatly 
benefit from the input of the Settlement Judge's unique assessment of 
litigation risk, which, in the Agency's experience, carries significant 
weight among parties and often drives quick resolution of the issues. 
After receiving this valuable input from the Settlement Judge, the 
parties would then be empowered to decide for themselves the best, most 
efficient process to resolve their disputes, whether it be through 
further mediation, an EAB appeal or litigation in federal court.
    In addition, EPA's proposals to reform the current permit appeal 
process go hand-in-hand with the newly proposed ADR process. By 
modifying and expediting the appeal process, EPA hopes to make an EAB 
appeal a more attractive, less time-consuming option for the parties to 
resolve permit disputes.
    In proposing this new process, EPA recognizes that it is 
fundamentally changing the administrative exhaustion requirement. 
However, based on the changes to EAB permit reviews over time and the 
documented success of ADR processes, EPA ultimately believes that an 
ADR-focused, party-driven process will resolve disputes faster and 
result in better outcomes (either through ADR, streamlined Board 
adjudication or expedited judicial review).
    Lastly, EPA is proposing several measured reforms designed to 
better align the Board's role with its delegated authority from the 
Administrator. The Administrator is given the authority to issue 
permits under each of the relevant statutes implicated in EPA's 
proposal. In creating the EAB, the Administrator delegated a portion of 
this authority to the Board. By providing the Administrator with tools 
to exercise his or her statutory authority in the first instance 
together with some appropriate checks and balances on how the Board 
exercises its delegated authority, the measures included in today's 
proposal are designed to better reflect how the Administrator exercises 
or delegates his or her permitting authority.

D. What provisions of the CFR is EPA proposing to revise?

    EPA proposes to revise the following provisions of the CFR:
     40 CFR 1.25(e) (Environmental Appeals Board).
     40 CFR 22.44 (appeals from the terminations of NPDES and 
RCRA permits).
     40 CFR part 23 (judicial review provisions).
     40 CFR 49.159(d) (appeals from Federal Minor New Source 
Review permit decisions made by Regional Administrators in Indian 
Country under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 49.172(d) (appeals from Federal Major Non-
Attainment New Source Review permit decisions by Regional 
Administrators in Indian County under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 52.21(q) (appeals from PSD permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators and delegated states under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 55.6(a)(3) (appeals of Outer Continental Shelf 
permit decisions made by Regional Administrators).
     40 CFR 71.11(l) (appeals from Title V operating permit 
decisions made by

[[Page 66091]]

Regional Administrators and delegated states under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 78.3(b)(1) (appeals from certain acid rain 
permitting decisions made by Regional Administrators).
     40 CFR 124.16 & 124.19 (appeals from NPDES permit 
decisions made by Regional Administrators and Administrative Law Judges 
under the Clean Water Act; appeals from permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators under RCRA; appeals from PSD permit decisions 
made by Regional Administrators and delegated states under the Clean 
Air Act; appeals of Outer Continental Shelf permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators; appeals from UIC permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators under the Safe Drinking Water Act).
     40 CFR part 222 (appeals from ocean dumping permit 
decisions made by Regional Administrators under the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act).
     40 CFR 270.42(f) & 270.155 (appeals from Remedial Action 
Plan decisions under RCRA).

E. What regulatory text has EPA included in this proposal?

    EPA has included proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 124 that 
would effectuate the proposed ADR process for most permit appeals. The 
Agency has provided this regulatory text to show the public how the 
substance of the newly proposed ADR process would be implemented. While 
this proposal makes clear that the proposed ADR process would apply to 
each of the permit decisions listed in section I.B. of this document, 
EPA has not included proposed conforming regulatory text for the 
following sections:
     40 CFR 49.159(d) (appeals from Federal Minor New Source 
Review permit decisions in Indian Country under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 49.172(d) (appeals from Federal Major Non-
Attainment New Source Review permit decisions in Indian County under 
the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 52.21(q) (appeals from PSD permit decisions made by 
Regional Administrators and delegated states under the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 55.6(a)(3) (appeals of Outer Continental Shelf 
permit decisions).
     40 CFR 71.11(l) (appeals from Title V operating permit 
decisions made by Regional Administrators and delegated states under 
the Clean Air Act).
     40 CFR 78.3(b)(1) (appeals from certain acid rain 
permitting decisions).
     40 CFR part 222 (appeals from ocean dumping permit 
decisions under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act).
     40 CFR 270.42(f) & 270.155 (appeals from Remedial Action 
Plan decisions under RCRA)
    EPA seeks comment on how to conform the above-cited sections with 
the proposed revisions to part 124. EPA could conform those sections by 
cross-referencing the proposed revisions in part 124 (requiring persons 
to file a notice of dispute under proposed Sec.  124.19) or by drafting 
separate regulatory text that would create an identical ADR exhaustion 
process within each of those sections.

IV. Request for Comment

    EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed regulation and 
the bases articulated for it above.
    Except for the proposal regarding the Administrator's legal 
interpretations (Section III, A.8. of this document), EPA is not 
soliciting comment on any functions of the EAB unrelated to permit 
appeals. For example, EPA is not soliciting comment on enforcement 
appeals or any other aspect of the EAB's work not specifically proposed 
today. With the exception of the proposals discussed above--for which 
EPA solicits comment--nothing in today's proposal would change the 
processes for having an appeal adjudicated by the EAB (should the 
parties agree to proceed with an appeal before the EAB). Therefore, EPA 
does not solicit comment on the unchanged aspects of the permit appeal 
processes.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) because it is limited to agency organization, management 
or personnel matters.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because it relates to ``agency organization, management or personnel.''

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not contain any information collection activities 
and therefore does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to 
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. 
This rule pertains to agency management or personnel, which the EPA 
expressly exempts from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under 
5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1536, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``convered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 
of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or 
safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

[[Page 66092]]

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or 
safety standard.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 1

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

40 CFR Part 22

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Penalties, Pesticides and pests, 
Noise prevention, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 23

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Courts, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Pesticides and pests, 
Radiation protection, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 49

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and Recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Ammonia, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 55

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Continental shelf, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 71

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 78

    Acid rain, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution 
control, Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 124

    Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, 
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 222

    Administrative practice and procedures, Water pollution control.

    Dated: November 6, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to revise 
40 CFR parts 1, 22, 23, 49, 52, 55, 71, 78, 124, and 222 as follows:

PART 1--STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C 552.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.25 by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding paragraph 
(e)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.25   Staff offices.

* * * * *
    (e)(2) Functions. (i) The Environmental Appeals Board shall 
exercise any authority expressly delegated to it in this title. With 
respect to any matter for which authority has not been expressly 
delegated to the Environmental Appeals Board, the Environmental Appeals 
Board shall, at the Administrator's request, provide advice and 
consultation, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, prepare a 
recommended decision, or serve as the final decisionmaker, as the 
Administrator deems appropriate.
    (ii) In performing its functions, the Environmental Appeals Board 
may consult with any EPA employee concerning any matter governed by the 
rules set forth in this title, provided such consultation does not 
violate applicable ex parte rules in this title.
    (iii) The Administrator may limit the Environmental Appeals Board's 
authority to interpret statutes and regulations otherwise delegated to 
it in this title by issuing, through the General Counsel, a binding 
legal interpretation of any applicable statute or regulation. Nothing 
in this section limits the Administrator's authority to review or 
change any EAB decision.
* * * * *
    (4) Term. (i) Each member of the Environmental Appeals Board is 
appointed to a twelve-year term, with an option for renewal at the end 
of that twelve-year period. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a member 
of the Environmental Appeals Board from resigning before the expiration 
of the member's twelve-year term. Similarly, nothing in this paragraph 
forecloses the Administrator from reassigning a member of the 
Environmental Appeals Board to another position prior to the expiration 
of the member's renewable twelve-year term.
    (ii) If a member of the Environmental Appeals Board resigns before 
the expiration of the member's term, the replacement member will serve 
for the remaining portion of the term, with an option for renewal at 
the end of the term.

PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING

0
3. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.

Subpart A--General Program Requirements

0
4. Amend Sec.  124.16 by revising the first sentences of paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii), and by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  124.16   Stays of contested permit conditions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) If a notice of dispute of a RCRA, UIC, or NPDES permit under 
Sec.  124.19 of this part is filed, the effect of the contested permit 
conditions shall be stayed and shall not be subject to judicial review 
pending final agency action. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The Regional Administrator shall, as soon as possible after 
receiving notification from the EAB of the filing of a notice of 
dispute, notify the EAB, the applicant, and all other interested 
parties of the uncontested (and severable) conditions of the final 
permit that will become fully effective enforceable obligations of the 
permit as of the date specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. 
* * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A stay may be granted based on the grounds that a dispute to 
the Administrator under Sec.  124.19 of one permit may result in 
changes to another EPA-issued permit only when each of the permits 
involved has been disputed to the Administrator.
* * * * *

[[Page 66093]]

0
5. Revise Sec.  124.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  124.19   Dispute of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.

    (a) Disputing a permit decision--(1) Initiating a dispute. 
Disputing a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD final permit decision issued under 
Sec.  124.15 of this part, or a decision to deny a permit for the 
active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit under 
Sec.  270.29 of this chapter, is commenced by filing a notice of 
dispute with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board within the 
time prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (2) Who may file? Any person who filed comments on the draft permit 
or participated in a public hearing on the draft permit may file a 
notice of dispute as provided in this section. Additionally, any person 
who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the public 
hearing on the draft permit may dispute any permit conditions set forth 
in the final permit decision, but only to the extent that those final 
permit conditions reflect changes from the proposed draft permit.
    (3) Filing deadline. A notice of dispute must be filed with the 
Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days after the 
Regional Administrator serves notice of the issuance of a RCRA, UIC, 
NPDES, or PSD final permit decision under Sec.  124.15 or a decision to 
deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management 
facility or unit under Sec.  270.29 of this chapter. A notice is filed 
when it is received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at 
the address specified for the appropriate method of delivery as 
provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
    (4) Notice contents. (i) A notice of dispute must identify the 
contested permit condition or other specific challenge to the permit 
decision and clearly set forth the party's contentions for why the 
permit decision should be reviewed.
    (ii) A notice of dispute may not exceed 20 double-space pages.
    (iii) A person filing a notice of dispute must certify that:
    (A) The person filed comments on the draft permit or participated 
in a public hearing on the draft permit; or
    (B) The disputed conditions in the final permit reflect changes 
from the proposed draft permit.
    (b) Response(s) to a notice of dispute. (1) The Regional 
Administrator must file a response to the notice of dispute within 21 
days after the service of the petition.
    (2) A permit applicant who did not file a notice of dispute but who 
wishes to participate in the dispute process must file a notice of 
appearance and a response. Such documents must be filed by the deadline 
provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (3) The State or Tribal authority where the permitted facility or 
site is or is proposed to be located (if that authority is not the 
permit issuer) must also file a notice of appearance and a response if 
it wishes to participate in the dispute process. Such response must be 
filed by the deadline provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (4) Response contents. (i) A response must respond to the issues 
raised in the notice of dispute.
    (ii) A response may not exceed 20 double-spaced pages.
    (c) Filing and service requirements. Documents filed under this 
section, including the notice of dispute, must be filed with the Clerk 
of the Environmental Appeals Board. A document is filed when it is 
received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at the address 
specified for the appropriate method of delivery as provided in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Service of a document between parties 
to a dispute or by the Environmental Appeals Board on a party is 
complete upon mailing for U.S. mail or EPA internal mail, when placed 
in the custody of a reliable commercial delivery service, or upon 
transmission for facsimile or email.
    (1) Caption and other filing requirements. Every document filed 
with the Environmental Appeals Board must specifically identify in the 
caption the permit applicant, the permitted facility, and the permit 
number. All documents that are filed must be signed by the person 
filing the documents or the representative of the person filing the 
documents. Each filing must also indicate the signer's name, address, 
and telephone number, as well as an email address, and facsimile 
number, if any.
    (2) Method of filing. Unless otherwise permitted under these rules, 
documents must be filed either by using the Environmental Appeals 
Board's electronic filing system, by U.S. mail, or by hand delivery or 
courier (including delivery by U.S. Express Mail or by a commercial 
delivery service).
    (i) Electronic filing. Documents that are filed electronically must 
be submitted using the Environmental Appeals Board's electronic filing 
system, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations imposed 
by order of the Environmental Appeals Board. All documents filed 
electronically must include the full name of the person filing below 
the signature line. Compliance with Environmental Appeals Board 
electronic filing requirements constitutes compliance with applicable 
signature requirements.
    (ii) Filing by U.S. Mail. Documents that are sent by U.S. Postal 
Service (except by U.S. Express Mail) must be sent to the official 
mailing address of the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 
original and two copies of each document must be filed. The person 
filing the documents must include a cover letter to the Clerk of the 
Environmental Appeals Board clearly identifying the documents that are 
being submitted, the name of the party on whose behalf the documents 
are being submitted, as well as the name of the person filing the 
documents, his or her address, telephone number and, if available, fax 
number and email address.
    (iii) Filing by hand delivery or courier. Documents delivered by 
hand or courier (including deliveries by U.S. Express Mail or by a 
commercial delivery service) must be delivered to the Clerk of the 
Environmental Appeals Board at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Environmental Appeals Board, WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Room 3332, Washington, DC 20004.
    (3) Service--(i) Service information. The first document filed by 
any person must contain the name, mailing address, telephone number, 
and email address of an individual authorized to receive service 
relating to the proceeding. Parties must promptly file any changes in 
this information with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board, and 
serve copies on all parties to the proceeding. If a party fails to 
furnish such information and any changes thereto, service to the 
party's last known address satisfies the requirements of paragraph 
(i)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Service requirements for parties. A party must serve the 
notice of dispute on the Regional Administrator, the permit applicant 
and the state or tribal authority where the permitted facility or site 
is (or is proposed to be) located (if the applicant, state or tribal 
authority is not the disputing party). Once a dispute is docketed, 
every document filed with the Environmental Appeals Board must be 
served on all other parties. Service must be by first class U.S. mail, 
by any reliable commercial delivery service, or, if agreed to by the 
parties, by facsimile or other electronic means, including but not 
necessarily limited to email. A party who consents to service by 
facsimile or

[[Page 66094]]

other electronic means must file an acknowledgement of its consent 
(identifying the type of electronic means agreed to and the electronic 
address to be used) with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board. 
The Environmental Appeals Board may by order authorize or require 
service by facsimile, email, or other electronic means, subject to any 
appropriate conditions and limitations.
    (iii) Service of rulings, orders, and decisions. The Clerk of the 
Environmental Appeals Board must serve copies of rulings, orders, and 
decisions on all parties. Service may be made by U.S. mail (including 
by certified mail or return receipt requested, Overnight Express and 
Priority Mail), EPA's internal mail, any reliable commercial delivery 
service, or electronic means (including but not necessarily limited to 
facsimile and email).
    (4) Proof of service. A certificate of service must be appended to 
each document filed stating the names of persons served, the date and 
manner of service, as well as the electronic, mailing, or hand delivery 
address, or facsimile number, as appropriate.
    (d) Dispute resolution process. (1) Upon receipt of a notice of 
dispute under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Clerk of the 
Environmental Appeals Board shall assign one of the Board's judges to 
act as the Settlement Judge for the dispute.
    (2) Convening of parties--(i) Timing. The Settlement Judge shall 
convene all parties to the dispute, either in-person or via video 
conference, within 30 days from the deadline provided in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section. This deadline may be extended by unanimous 
consent of the parties.
    (ii) Issue summaries. (A) No later than 10 days before the date of 
the convening, each party must submit a brief written submission (no 
more than 15 double-spaced pages) summarizing the issues in dispute and 
its positions on those issues. In addition to identifying any 
jurisdictional or policy issues, these submissions should include any 
background information that might facilitate settlement discussions. 
The submissions should also include discussions of what the parties 
seek from ADR and their perspective on what a successful agreement 
might include.
    (B) Unless authorized by the submitting party, the issue summaries 
may not be shared with any other party.
    (iii) Initial mediation. (A) Each party must meet with the 
Settlement Judge in a private session at or before the convening 
meeting. In the private session, the Settlement Judge shall provide 
each party with a confidential, oral assessment of the strengths and 
weaknesses of their case. Unless authorized by the communicating party, 
the Settlement Judge may not disclose any information provided in 
private session.
    (B) Following the private sessions, the parties may engage in 
direct discussions to resolve the dispute.
    (3) Concluding the resolution process.
    (i) At the conclusion of the convening meeting, or no later than 30 
days after the deadline provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
the parties may decide by unanimous agreement to:
    (A) Continue mediation under the Environmental Appeals Board's 
alternative dispute resolution program; or
    (B) Proceed with an appeal under Sec.  124.20 of this chapter.
    (ii) If the parties fail to agree to continue mediation or to 
proceed with an appeal under section 124.20 of this chapter, the Clerk 
of the Environmental Appeals Board shall dismiss the dispute.
    (iii) If all parties agree to continue mediation under paragraph 
(d)(3)(i) of this section, the following provisions apply:
    (A) The parties may decide by unanimous agreement at any time 
during the mediation process to proceed with an appeal under Sec.  
124.20 of this chapter.
    (B) The Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board may dismiss the 
notice of dispute and end the mediation process if:
    (1) The Settlement Judge determines that the mediation has not made 
substantial progress or that mediation is no longer appropriate; or
    (2) Any party to the mediation no longer wishes to participate.
    (4) Parties to unanimous agreement. Under this section, the 
Regional Administrator is not considered a party when determining the 
unanimous agreement of the parties.
    (e) Withdrawal of permit or portions of permit by Regional 
Administrator. The Regional Administrator, at any time prior to 30 days 
after the Regional Administrator files its response to the notice of 
dispute under paragraph (b) of this section, may, upon notification to 
the Environmental Appeals Board and any interested parties, withdraw 
the permit and prepare a new draft permit under Sec.  124.6 addressing 
the portions so withdrawn. The new draft permit must proceed through 
the same process of public comment and opportunity for a public hearing 
as would apply to any other draft permit subject to this part. Any 
portions of the permit that are not withdrawn and that are not stayed 
under Sec.  124.16(a) continue to apply. If the Settlement Judge has 
convened an initial meeting of the parties under paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section, the Regional Administrator may not unilaterally withdraw 
the permit, but instead must request that the Environmental Appeals 
Board grant a voluntary remand of the permit or any portion thereof.
    (f) Request for dismissal of dispute. The disputing party, by 
motion, may request to have the Environmental Appeals Board dismiss its 
dispute. The motion must briefly state the reason for its request.
    (g) Judicial review. (1) Filing a notice of dispute under paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section and participating in the convening meeting under 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section are, under 5 U.S.C. 704, a 
prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the final agency action.
    (2) For purposes of judicial review under the appropriate Act, 
final agency action on a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD permit occurs when:
    (i) A notice of dispute is dismissed under paragraph (d)(4) or 
(d)(5)(ii) of this section; or
    (ii) When agency review procedures under Sec.  124.20 of this 
chapter are exhausted and the Regional Administrator subsequently 
issues a final permit decision under Sec.  124.20(i)(2) of this 
chapter.
    (h) General NPDES permits. (1) Persons affected by an NPDES general 
permit may not file a petition under this section or otherwise 
challenge the conditions of a general permit in further Agency 
proceedings. Instead, they may do either of the following:
    (i) Challenge the general permit by filing an action in court; or
    (ii) Apply for an individual NPDES permit under Sec.  122.21 as 
authorized in Sec.  122.28 of this chapter and may then petition the 
Environmental Appeals Board to review the individual permit as provided 
by this section.
    (2) As provided in Sec.  122.28(b)(3) of this chapter, any 
interested person may also petition the Director to require an 
individual NPDES permit for any discharger eligible for authorization 
to discharge under an NPDES general permit.
0
6. Revise Sec.  124.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  124.20   Appeal of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.

    (a) Appealing a permit decision--(1) Initiating an appeal. An 
appeal of a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD final permit decision issued under 
Sec.  124.15 of this part, or a decision to deny a permit for

[[Page 66095]]

the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit 
under Sec.  270.29 of this chapter, is commenced by filing a notice 
with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board indicating that all 
parties to the dispute resolution process agree to proceed with an 
appeal under this section.
    (2) What may be appealed? An appeal under this section is limited 
to only those issues or permit conditions that the parties to the 
dispute resolution process agreed to appeal.
    (3) Administrative record. The Regional Administrator must file a 
certified index of the administrative record and the relevant portions 
of the administrative record within 30 days after the service of the 
notice under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Opening brief. (1) Filing the brief. A party that filed a 
notice of dispute under Sec.  124.19(a)(1) of this chapter may file an 
opening brief within 30 days after service of the notice under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (2) Contents of the brief. In addition to meeting the requirements 
in paragraph (e) of this section, the opening brief must:
    (i) Identify the contested permit condition or other specific 
challenge to the permit decision;
    (ii) Demonstrate that each challenge to the permit decision is 
based on a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is clearly 
erroneous; and
    (iii) Demonstrate, by providing specific citation or other 
appropriate reference to the administrative record (e.g., by including 
the document name and page number), that each issue being raised in the 
brief was raised during the public comment period (including any public 
hearing) to the extent required by Sec.  124.13. For each issue raised 
that was not raised previously, the brief must explain why such issues 
were not required to be raised during the public comment period as 
provided in Sec.  124.13. Additionally, if the brief raises an issue 
that the Regional Administrator addressed in the response to comments 
document issued pursuant to Sec.  124.17, then it must provide a 
citation to the relevant comment and response and explain why the 
Regional Administrator's response to the comment was clearly erroneous.
    (c) Answering brief(s). (1) The Regional Administrator must file an 
answering brief within 30 days after service of the opening briefing. 
The answering brief must respond to arguments raised by the appellant, 
together with specific citation or other appropriate reference to the 
record (e.g., by including the document name and page number).
    (2) A permit applicant that participated in the dispute resolution 
process may file an answering brief that responds to the arguments 
raised by the appellant within 30 days after service of the opening 
brief.
    (3) If the State or Tribal authority where the permitted facility 
or site is or is proposed to be located (if that authority is not the 
permit issuer) participated in the dispute resolution process, it may 
file an answering brief within 30 days after service of the opening 
brief.
    (d) Replies. (1) In PSD and other new source permit appeals, the 
Environmental Appeals Board will apply a presumption against the filing 
of a reply brief. By motion, appellant may seek leave of the 
Environmental Appeals Board to file a reply to the answering brief, 
which the Environmental Appeals Board, in its discretion, may grant. 
The motion must be filed simultaneously with the proposed reply within 
10 days after service of the answering brief. In its motion, appellant 
must specify those arguments in the response to which appellant seeks 
to reply and the reasons appellant believes it is necessary to file a 
reply to those arguments. Appellant may not raise new issues or 
arguments in the motion or in the reply.
    (2) In all other permit appeals under this section, appellant may 
file a reply within 15 days after service of the answering brief. 
Appellant may not raise new issues or arguments in the reply.
    (e) Content and form of briefs--(1) Content requirements. All 
briefs filed under this section must contain, under appropriate 
headings:
    (i) A table of contents, with page references;
    (ii) A table of authorities with references to the pages of the 
brief where they are cited;
    (iii) A table of attachments, if required under paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section; and
    (iv) A statement of compliance with the word limitation.
    (2) Attachments. Parts of the record to which the parties wish to 
direct the Environmental Appeals Board's attention may be appended to 
the brief submitted. If the brief includes attachments, a table must be 
included that provides the title of each appended document and assigns 
a label identifying where it may be found (e.g., Excerpts from the 
Response to Comments Document -- Attachment 1).
    (3) Length. Unless otherwise ordered by the Environmental Appeals 
Board, opening briefs and answering briefs may not exceed 14,000 words, 
and all other briefs may not exceed 7,000 words. Filers may rely on the 
word-processing system used to determine the word count. In lieu of a 
word limitation, filers may comply with a 30-page limit for petitions 
and response briefs, or a 15-page limit for replies. Headings, 
footnotes, and quotations count toward the word limitation. The table 
of contents, table of authorities, table of attachments (if any), 
statement requesting oral argument (if any), statement of compliance 
with the word limitation, and any attachments do not count toward the 
word limitation. The Environmental Appeals Board may exclude any 
opening brief, answering brief, or other brief that does not meet word 
limitations. Where a party can demonstrate a compelling and documented 
need to exceed such limitations, such party must seek advance leave of 
the Environmental Appeals Board to file a longer brief. Such requests 
are discouraged and will be granted only in unusual circumstances.
    (f) Motions--(1) In general. A request for an order or other relief 
must be made by written motion unless these rules prescribe another 
form.
    (2) Contents of a motion. A motion must state with particularity 
the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument 
necessary to support the motion. In advance of filing a motion, parties 
must attempt to ascertain whether the other party(ies) concur(s) or 
object(s) to the motion and must indicate in the motion the attempt 
made and the response obtained.
    (3) Response to motion. Any party may file a response to a motion. 
Responses must state with particularity the grounds for opposition and 
the legal argument necessary to support the motion. The response must 
be filed within 15 days after service of the motion unless the 
Environmental Appeals Board shortens or extends the time for response.
    (4) Reply. Any reply to a response filed under paragraph (f)(3) of 
this section must be filed within 10 days after service of the 
response. A reply must not introduce any new issues or arguments and 
may respond only to matters presented in the response.
    (5) Length. Unless otherwise ordered by the Environmental Appeals 
Board, motions and any responses or replies may not exceed 7000 words. 
Filers may rely on the word-processing system used to determine the 
word count. In lieu of a word limitation, filers may comply with a 15-
page limit. Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word 
or page-length limitation. The

[[Page 66096]]

Environmental Appeals Board may exclude any motion that does not meet 
word limitations. Where a party can demonstrate a compelling and 
documented need to exceed such limitations, such party must seek 
advance leave of the Environmental Appeals Board. Such requests are 
discouraged and will be granted only in unusual circumstances.
    (6) Disposition of a motion for a procedural order. The 
Environmental Appeals Board may act on a motion for a procedural order 
at any time without awaiting a response.
    (g) Motions for extension of time. (1) Parties must file motions 
for extensions of time sufficiently in advance of the due date to allow 
other parties to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the 
request for more time and to provide the Environmental Appeals Board 
with a reasonable opportunity to issue an order.
    (2) Each party may only file one motion for extension and the 
requested extension may not exceed 30 days.
    (h) Filing and service requirements. Documents filed under this 
section must be filed and serviced in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  124.19(c) of this chapter.
    (i) Final disposition. (1) The Environmental Appeals Board shall 
issue its decision on a permit appeal by the later date occurring 60 
days after the date on which:
    (i) The final brief has been submitted; or
    (ii) Oral argument is concluded.
    (2) Any written opinion issued by the Environmental Appeals Board 
should only be as long as necessary to address the specific issues 
presented to the Board in the appeal.
    (3) The Regional Administrator must issue a final permit decision:
    (i) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues a decision on the 
merits of the appeal and the decision does not include a remand of the 
proceedings; or
    (ii) Upon the completion of remand proceedings if the proceedings 
are remanded, unless the Environmental Appeals Board's remand order 
specifically provides that appeal of the remand decision will be 
required to exhaust administrative remedies.
    (4) The Regional Administrator must promptly publish notice of any 
final agency action regarding a PSD permit in the Federal Register.
    (j) Motions for reconsideration or clarification. Motions to 
reconsider or clarify any final disposition of the Environmental 
Appeals Board must be filed within 10 days after service of that 
disposition. Motions for reconsideration must set forth the matters 
claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged 
errors. Motions for clarification must set forth with specificity the 
portion of the decision for which clarification is being sought and the 
reason clarification is necessary. Motions for reconsideration or 
clarification under this provision must be directed to, and decided by, 
the Environmental Appeals Board. Motions for reconsideration or 
clarification directed to the Administrator, rather than the 
Environmental Appeals Board, will not be considered, unless such motion 
relates to a matter that the Environmental Appeals Board has referred 
to the Administrator pursuant to Sec.  124.2 and for which the 
Administrator has issued the final order. A motion for reconsideration 
or clarification does not stay the effective date of the final order 
unless the Environmental Appeals Board specifically so orders.
    (k) Board authority. In exercising its duties and responsibilities 
under this part, the Environmental Appeals Board may do all acts and 
take all measures necessary for the efficient, fair, and impartial 
adjudication of issues arising in an appeal under this part including, 
but not limited to, imposing procedural sanctions against a party who, 
without adequate justification, fails or refuses to comply with this 
part or an order of the Environmental Appeals Board. Such sanctions may 
include drawing adverse inferences against a party, striking a party's 
pleadings or other submissions from the record, and denying any or all 
relief sought by the party in the proceeding. Additionally, for good 
cause, the Board may relax or suspend the filing requirements 
prescribed by these rules or Board order.
0
7. Revise Sec.  124.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  124.20   Computation of time.

    (a) Any time period scheduled to begin on the occurrence of an act 
or event shall begin on the day after the act or event.
    (b) Any time period scheduled to begin before the occurrence of an 
act or event shall be computed so that the period ends on the day 
before the act or event.
    (c) If the final day of any time period falls on a weekend or legal 
holiday, the time period shall be extended to the next working day.
    (d) When a party or interested person may or must act within a 
prescribed period after being served and service is made by U.S. mail, 
EPA's internal mail, or reliable commercial delivery service, 3 days 
shall be added to the prescribed time. The prescribed period for acting 
after being served is not expanded by 3 days when service is made by 
personal delivery, facsimile, or email.

[FR Doc. 2019-24940 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


