Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Peter Williams, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Supreme Court briefMar 9, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ia
APPENDIX
Williams v. EPA, No. 24-1386 (D.C. Cir. June
25, 2025) ............................................................. 1a
Letter from Cynthia A. Newburg, Director,
Stratospheric Protection Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, to Peter
Williams (Mar. 31, 2022) ................................... 3a
Memorandum to File, Cynthia A. Newburg,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division,
Environmental Protection Agency (Mar. 31,
2022) ................................................................... 6a
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Notice of
2022 Set-Aside Pool Allowance Allocations
for Production and Consumption of
Regulated Substances under the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020,
87 Fed. Reg. 19,683 (Apr. 5, 2022) (excerpt) ... 12a
Letter from Joseph M. Goffman, Assistant
Administrator, Air & Radiation,
Environmental Protection Agency, to J.
Gordon Arbuckle & Lawrence J. Joseph
(Nov. 8, 2024) ................................................... 14a
Williams v. EPA, Nos. 23-1340, 24-1386 (D.C.
Cir. Feb. 10, 2025) ............................................ 17a
Williams v. EPA, Nos. 23-1340, 24-1386 (D.C.
Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).............................................. 18a
Williams v. EPA, No. 24-1386 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 10,
2025) (en banc) ................................................. 22a
Williams v. EEPA, No. 24-1386 (D.C. Cir.
Oct.10, 2025) (panel) ........................................ 23a
5 U.S.C. § 551(13) ................................................... 24a
5 U.S.C. § 553(e) ..................................................... 24a
5 U.S.C. § 555(b), (e) ............................................... 24a
iia
5 U.S.C. § 559 ......................................................... 25a
5 U.S.C. § 702 ......................................................... 25a
5 U.S.C. § 703 ......................................................... 26a
5 U.S.C. § 704 ......................................................... 27a
5 U.S.C. § 706 ......................................................... 27a
28 U.S.C. § 1631 ..................................................... 28a
42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) ................................................. 28a
42 U.S.C. § 7607(b) ................................................. 30a
42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) ................................................. 32a
42 U.S.C. § 7675(e)(2)(D)........................................ 39a
42 U.S.C. § 7675(k)(1) ............................................ 40a
40 C.F.R. § 84.3 (excerpt) ....................................... 40a
40 C.F.R. § 84.15(c) ................................................ 41a
Williams New-Entrant Application (excerpt) ....... 42a
1a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
September Term, 2024
No. 24-1386
EPA-89FR84583
Peter Williams,
Filed
On:
June 25, 2025
Petitioner
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for
reconsideration or clarification or to transfer or dismiss the case, the opposition thereto, and the reply;
the emergency motion to supplement the record and
to appoint a special master, the opposition thereto,
and the reply; the emergency motion for stay, the notice of opposition thereto, the opposition to the motion, and the corrected reply; the motion for judicial
notice and the opposition thereto; and the motion for
leave to file a notice of supplemental authority, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration or clarification be denied. With respect
to petitioner’s challenge to the denial by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) of his application for hydrofluorocarbon allowances, he failed to
timely commence that challenge, regardless of the
jurisdictional status of the time limit. See 42 U.S.C. §
7607(b)(1). And his challenge to that denial was ripe
2a
from the moment that the EPA issued it. See Energy
Future Coal. v. EPA, 793 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir.
2015). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to
transfer be denied and the motion to dismiss be
granted. In taking the position that this court lacks
jurisdiction over the remainder of this case, petitioner has waived any argument for jurisdiction. See
Shands v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 111 F.4th 1,
10 (D.C. Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1178
(2025). And it is not “in the interest of justice” to
transfer this case to the district court. 28 U.S.C. §
1631. For one thing, it seems at best questionable
that the district court would have jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge to the EPA’s denial of certain of his reconsideration petitions. See Edison Elec.
Inst. v. OSHA, 411 F.3d 272, 282 n.4 (D.C. Cir.
2005). In any event, petitioner has already filed a
case in the district court. See Am. Petroleum Inst. v.
SEC, 714 F.3d 1329, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 2013). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition
will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days
after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing
or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.
41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk
BY: /s/
Selena R. Gancasz
Deputy Clerk
3a
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 31, 2022
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
Mr. Peter Williams
New Era Group
709 Pickering Drive Unit B
Murrells Inlet, South Carolina 29567
Dear Mr. Peter Williams,
This letter communicates EPA’s decision regarding
Peter Williams DBA New Era Group (New Era
Group)’s application for set-aside allowances under
40 CFR § 84.15(c). In accordance with the
methodology
finalized
in
the
final
Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Allowance Allocation and
Trading Framework Rule (HFC Allocation
Framework Rule), EPA issued allowances on
October 1, 2021, to companies that had provided
data on their historic import and production of
HFCs, as well as entities that use HFCs in six
applications specified by Congress. EPA also
established the set-aside pool of allowances for a
limited set of end users and importers (see 86 FR
55116). The set-aside pool of allowances was
established for three groups: end users that qualify
for
application-specific
allowances;
existing
importers that were not required to report under 40
CFR part 98 (i.e., the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program); and new market entrants. New Era
Group submitted an application for set-aside
allowances as a new market entrant. The regulatory
4a
language specifies that set-aside allowances are
available for entities “who are newly importing
regulated substances, do not share corporate or
common ownership, corporate affiliation in the past
five years, or familial relations with entities
receiving allowances through this rule.” 40 CFR §
84.15(c)(2). EPA also explained in the final rule that
new market entrants may include companies that
had previously imported HFCs in any prior year but
exited the business by 2020 and who did not
otherwise qualify to receive general pool allowances
(see 86 FR 55157).
After reviewing New Era Group’s set-aside
application and supporting information available to
the Agency, EPA has determined that New Era
Group is not eligible for allowances under the setaside pool as a new market entrant and is therefore
denying New Era Group’s application. Based on the
information before the Agency, EPA has determined
that New Era Group does “share corporate or
common ownership, corporate affiliation in the past
five years, or familial relations” with an entity
receiving allowances through this rule, specifically
RMS of Georgia.
Public data available to the Agency from the State
of Georgia Secretary of State confirms that you and
the owner of a company who received allowances
under the final HFC Allocation Framework Rule are
both listed as officers for “New Era Group Inc” as
recently as 2019. This equates to corporate
affiliation in the past five years with an entity
receiving allowances through this rule, and
therefore disqualifies New Era Group’s application
in accordance with EPA’s regulations.
5a
Further, the application submitted for new market
entrant set-aside allowances was incomplete. EPA
regulations at 40 CFR § 84.15(d)(2) require
applicants “to be eligible for consideration” to
provide “the complete ownership of the company
(with percentages of ownership)” 40 CFR §
84.15(d)(2)(i). After Agency outreach explaining the
relevant requirements, information submitted by
the applicant failed to show the complete ownership
of the company (with percentages of ownership).
New Era Group also failed to provide as part of its
application, “The date of incorporation and State in
which the company is incorporated” 40 CFR §
84.15(d)(2)(iv), and the “State license identifier” 40
CFR § 84.15(d)(2)(v). For these reasons, EPA is
denying New Era Group’s application.
As of January 1, 2022, if New Era Group chooses to
import any of the HFCs listed at 40 CFR Part 84
Appendix A, or blends containing any of those
HFCs, the company will need to acquire allowances
from another allowance holder by the time of
import.
If you have questions about the content of this
letter, please contact us at HFCAllocation@epa.gov.
More
information
about
the
regulatory
requirements, including fact sheets, frequently
asked questions, and a list of existing allowance
holders is available at https://www.epa.gov/climatehfcs-reduction.
Sincerely,
/s/
Cynthia A. Newberg
Director, Stratospheric Protection
Division
6a
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Subject:
From:
To:
March 31, 2022
Methodology for Allocating Certain
Set-aside Allowances for 2022: Existing
importers who were not required to
report under 40 CFR part 98 and new
market entrants
Cynthia
A.
Newberg,
Director
Stratospheric Protection Division
The file
Purpose
This
memorandum
documents
the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s decisionmaking
regarding
the
allocation
of
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) consumption allowances
from the set-aside pool for two categories of setaside allowances. The Agency established the setaside pool for entities that meet specific criteria. The
first category is for entities that imported regulated
substances in 2020 that were not required to report
under 40 CFR part 98, i.e., the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program (GHGRP), and were not issued
allowances on October 1, 2021 (40 CFR 84.15(c)(1)).
The second category is for new market entrants,
which include entities who are newly importing
regulated substances, do not share corporate or
common ownership, corporate affiliation in the past
five years, or familial relations with entities
receiving allowances through the final rule
establishing the HFC Allowance Allocation and
Trading Program (40 CFR 84.15 (c)(2)). The
decision-making process for a third category of setaside allowances—for entities who requested
7a
application-specific allowances pursuant to 40 CFR
84.15(b)(1)—is
contained
in
a
separate
memorandum.
Decision-making process
EPA followed a consistent process in assessing the
applications received for set-aside allowances
pursuant to 40 CFR 84.15(c)(1) and 40 CFR
84.15(c)(2).
Step 1: Assess the timeliness of applications
• Under 40 CFR 84.15(b), the regulatory deadline
to submit applications for the set-aside pool of
allowances was November 30, 2021. On
November 19, 2021, EPA extended this deadline
to December 6, 2021. Instructions for how to
apply
were
posted
on
this
website:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/hfcallocation-rule-reporting-and-recordkeeping (see
attachment).
• Application forms that were received on or before
December 6, 2021, were considered to be
submitted on time. Applications received after
December 6, 2021, were considered to be late and
were not evaluated. EPA regulations state that
entities needed to apply by the deadline in order
“to be eligible for consideration.” Entities who
inquired about the set-aside pool of allowances
after December 6, 2021, were informed that the
application deadline had passed and that
applications were no longer being accepted.
Step 2: Assess the completeness of applications
• Entities that applied pursuant to 40 CFR
84.15(c)(1) as those that imported regulated
substances in 2020, that were not required to
report under 40 CFR part 98, and were not
8a
issued allowances as of October 1, 2021,
(referred to as “previously unidentified
importers” in the preamble, see 86 FR 55156)
were required to submit an application
consistent with 40 CFR 84.15(d)(1).
• Entities that applied pursuant to 40 CFR
84.15(c)(2) as those who are newly importing
regulated substances, do not share corporate or
common ownership, corporate affiliation in the
past five years, or familial relations with
entities receiving allowances through this rule
(referred to as “new market entrants”) were
required to submit an application consistent
with 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2).
• If an application was missing required
information or supporting documentation, the
Agency reached out to the applicant via email
and/or telephone to request the missing
elements with specified deadlines for providing
the missing information. If the applicant did not
respond initially, EPA made multiple attempts
to obtain the additional information. If an
applicant failed to respond or did not submit the
necessary information, EPA deemed those
applications incomplete and the applications
were denied.
Step 3: Assess each applicant’s eligibility
***
• For new market entrants:
• 40 CFR 84.15(c)(2) specifies that consumption
allowances are available to “Persons who are
newly importing regulated substances, do not
share corporate or common ownership,
corporate affiliation in the past five years, or
9a
•
•
familial relations with entities receiving
allowances through this rule.” EPA also
explained in the preamble and on its website
that new market entrants also include
companies that had previously imported
HFCs in any prior year but exited the
business by 2020 and who did not otherwise
qualify to receive general pool allowances (see
86 FR 55157).
To determine whether an applicant was
newly importing regulated substances (i.e., is
seeking to import HFCs for the very first time
or only began or restarted importing HFCs
after January 1, 2020), EPA looked at the
following sources of information to determine
whether applicants had past import history:
a) certified data submitted to EPA’s GHGRP;
b) data submitted to EPA as part of the setaside application; c) data from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; and/or d) data from
private import databases (i.e., ImportGenius
and Datamyne) as a supplemental source. In
particular, EPA reviewed 2019 and 2020
import records to confirm whether applicants
were newly importing HFCs in 2020.
To determine whether an applicant shares
corporate or common ownership, corporate
affiliation in the past five years, or familial
relations with entities receiving allowances
through this rule, the Agency looked at
information contained in the new market
entrant applications as well as publicly
available data, for example from Open
Corporates and individual state websites
containing business information, to assess
10a
each applicant’s eligibility criteria. Data
obtained from Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers
were also used to assess each applicant’s
eligibility criteria.
• Applicants who did not meet one or more of
the regulatory eligibility criteria were denied.
• All applicants who were denied set-aside
allowances received a letter documenting
EPA’s reasoning for the denial.
Step 4: Allocate allowances consistent with the
regulatory provisions
• EPA’s final regulations found in 40 CFR
84.15(e)(2) provide the calculation by which
previously unidentified importers would be
allocated allowances.
• Eligible new market entrants could request to be
allocated up to 0.2 million metric tons exchange
value equivalent (MMTEVe), i.e., 200,000
MTEVe. 40 CFR 84.15(e)(3). As applicable,
eligible new market entrants were allocated
either the amount requested, or if they requested
above the regulatory maximum, they were
allocated the regulatory maximum of 200,000
MTEVe.
Outcomes for specific entities who applied as
previously unidentified importers under 40
CFR 84.15(c)(1)
***
Peter Williams DBA New Era Group
This applicant requested 200,000.0 set-aside
allowances, and EPA denied the application. Based
on information available to the Agency, EPA
determined that Peter Williams DBA New Era
11a
Group shares “corporate affiliation in the past five
years” with an entity receiving allowances through
this rule, specifically RMS of Georgia. Public data
available to the Agency from the State of Georgia
Secretary of State show that the applicant (Peter
Williams DBA New Era Group) and the owner of a
company who received consumption allowances on
October 1, 2021 (Ken Ponder, owner of RMS of
Georgia) are both listed as officers for “New Era
Group Inc” as recently as 2019. The owner of an
entity that received allowances on October 1, 2021,
serving as an officer alongside Peter Williams for
New Era Group Inc in 2019 equates to corporate
affiliation. Therefore, the applicant shares corporate
affiliation in the past five years with an entity
receiving allowances through this rule. This
disqualifies Peter Williams DBA New Era Group as
an entity eligible for new market entrant set-aside
allowances in accordance with EPA’s regulations
codified in 40 CFR 84.15(c)(2). Further, the
application submitted by this applicant was
incomplete. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)
require applicants “to be eligible for consideration”
to provide “the complete ownership of the company
(with percentages of ownership)” 40 CFR
84.15(d)(2)(i). After Agency outreach explaining the
relevant requirements, information submitted by
the applicant failed to show the complete ownership
of the company (with percentages of ownership).
Peter Williams DBA New Era Group also failed to
provide as part of its application, “The date of
incorporation and State in which the company is
incorporated” 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)(iv), and the “State
license identifier” 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)(v).
***
12a
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0669; FRL–9116–02–OAR]
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Notice of
2022 Set-Aside Pool Allowance Allocations for
Production and Consumption of Regulated
Substances Under the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act of 2020
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is providing notice that on March 31, 2022, the
Agency issued hydrofluorocarbon allowances to
applicants that met the applicable criteria from the
set-aside pool established in EPA's 2021 final rule
titled
Phasedown
of
Hydrofluorocarbons:
Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading
Program under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act. In accordance with this final
rule, the Agency redistributed allowances remaining
in the set-aside pool to entities that received general
pool production and consumption allowances on
October 1, 2021. Both the set-aside allocation and
the general pool reallocation were announced on the
Agency's website on March 31, 2022, and entities
were notified either by letter or electronic mail of the
allocation decisions. The Agency also provided notice
to certain companies on March 31, 2022, that the
Agency intends to retire an identified set of those
companies' allowances in accordance with the
administrative consequences provisions established
in the final rule.
***
Under the third set-aside category, for new
market entrants, 45 entities submitted applications
13a
by the deadline of December 6, 2021. EPA is denying
applications from seven entities, CAILLECH LLC,
ChemPenn, LLC, ComStar International Inc.,
ISOSTU LLC, J&J AC Supply Inc, Kim Stilwell, and
Peter Williams DBA New Era Group, because they
are ineligible under 40 CFR 84.15(c)(2). The
applicants were ineligible for at least one of the
following reasons: [*19685]
(1) Did not submit complete applications,
(2) were not newly importing regulated
substances, or
(3) shared corporate or common ownership,
corporate affiliation in the past five years, or familial
relations with entities receiving allowances on
October 1, 2021.
Consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 84.15,
EPA has allocated allowances for new market
entrants to the entities listed in Table 2.
***
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this
final action is published in the Federal Register.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final action does not affect the
finality of the action for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed and shall
not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Hans Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022–07152 Filed 4–4–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
14a
November 8, 2024
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. J. Gordon Arbuckle, Esq.
2550 M Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
gordona123@earthlink.net
Mr. Lawrence J. Joseph, Esq.
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700-1A
Washington, D.C. 20036
ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Dear Mr. Arbuckle and Mr. Joseph:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responding to the letter received from Mr. Gordon
Arbuckle dated April 20, 2022, and the letter
received from Mr. Lawrence J. Joseph dated
December 12, 2022, both of which were sent on
behalf of Peter Williams (dba The New Era Group).
We are responding to these letters as petitions for
reconsideration of an informal adjudication under
section 555(e) of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The letters requested that the EPA reconsider the
Agency’s March 31, 2022, denial of Peter Williams
15a
(dba The New Era Group)’s application for
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) set-aside allowances under
40 CFR 84.15(c). The EPA is denying the requests to
reconsider the above-cited action and is affirming its
prior denial without reopening that decision.
The EPA’s March 31, 2022, denial, which is
enclosed, cited two reasons for denying the
application from Peter Williams (dba The New Era
Group). First, the EPA determined that Peter
Williams (dba The New Era Group) “share[s]
corporate or common ownership, corporate
affiliation in the past five years, or familial
relations” with an entity receiving allowances.
Second, the application from Peter Williams (dba
The New Era Group) was incomplete for failing to
comply with EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
84.15(d)(2), which require applicants to provide
among other requirements, “the complete ownership
of the company (with percentages of ownership),”
see 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)(i), “[t]he date of
incorporation and State in which the company is
incorporated,” see 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)(iv), and the
“State license identifier,” see 40 CFR 84.15(d)(2)(v).
While the April 20, 2022, and December 12, 2022,
requests seem to assert material error in the
original denial, these requests fail to allege any new
evidence or changed circumstance that warrants
reconsideration of the EPA’s March 31, 2022,
decision to deny your client’s new market entrant
application. All of the information contained in the
April 20, 2022, and December 12, 2022, letters was
available to, and within the control of, Peter
Williams (dba The New Era Group) before the EPA
first acted. Such information is not new evidence or
a demonstration of changed circumstance for
16a
purposes of a petition for reconsideration. To the
extent any information could be considered new
evidence, your client could have provided, and did
not provide, that information to the EPA before the
Agency reached its decision on March 31, 2022. See
Sendra Corp. v. Magaw, 111 F.3d 162, 166 (D.C. Cir.
1997). As a result, the EPA is denying the requests
to reconsider the above-cited action; it is affirming
its prior denial and has not reopened its original
March 31, 2022, decision.
Thank you for your respective letters. I appreciate
your interest in these issues.
Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph Goffman
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
cc:
Peter Williams
dba The New Era Group
17a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
September Term, 2024
No. 24-1386
EPA-89FR84583
Peter Williams,
Filed On: February 10,
Petitioner
2025 [2099795]
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
Petitioner
ORDER
Upon consideration of respondents’ motion to
stay deadline to file certified index to the record
pending resolution of dispositive motions, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The certified index to the record is now due 14 days after the
court rules on respondents’ pending motion to dismiss.
FOR THE COURT:
Clifton
B.
Cislak,
Clerk
BY: /s/
Catherine J. Lavender
Deputy Clerk
18a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
September Term, 2024
No. 23-1340
EPA-88FR72060
Peter Williams,
Filed On: April 2, 2025
Petitioner
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
Petitioner
No. 24-1386
EPA-89FR84583
Peter Williams,
Petitioner
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
Petitioner
BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to consolidate
No. 23-1340 and No. 24-1386, the opposition thereto,
and the reply; the motions to dismiss those two cases, the opposition thereto, and the replies; the crossmotion to hold the cases in abeyance or expedite
them, the oppositions thereto, and the reply; the motion for summary reversal in No. 24-1386, the oppo-
19a
sition thereto, and the reply; the motion to vacate or
extend the briefing schedule in No. 23-1340 and the
opposition thereto; and the emergency motion in No.
24-1386, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss No. 241386 be granted in part and referred in part to the
merits panel to which the petition for review is assigned. To the extent that petitioner challenges the
denial by the Environmental Protection Agency
(“EPA”) of his application for hydrofluorocarbon allowances and the EPA’s allocations of such allowances for 2022, 2023, and 2024, petitioner failed to
commence No. 24-1386 within the requisite sixty
days of the EPA publishing notice of those actions in
the Federal Register. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7607(b)(1),
7675(k)(1)(C); Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1, 12–
13 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Neither petitioner’s
request for the EPA’s reconsideration of its initial
denial nor the EPA’s denial of that reconsideration
petition extended petitioner’s time to bring this action. To that end, the Clean Air Act specifies that a
reconsideration petition does not “extend the time
within which” to petition for review. 42 U.S.C. §
7607(b)(1). And the EPA’s denial of that reconsideration petition created no challenge to the EPA’s original decision that petitioner “‘could not have raised’
during the initial sixty-day window.” Sinclair Wyo.
Ref. Co. LLC v. EPA, 114 F.4th 693, 717 (D.C. Cir.
2024) (per curiam) (quoting Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v.
EPA, 705 F.3d 470, 473 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).
Next, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
he has standing to challenge the EPA’s allowance allocation for 2025. See Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA,
693 F.3d 169, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Although that allocation did not grant petitioner any allowances, any
20a
injury asserted by petitioner results from the EPA’s
earlier denial of his application and from the EPA’s
unchallenged regulation tying a new market entrant’s receipt of 2025 allowances to that entity’s receipt of 2023 allowances. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.11(b)(1).
However, we refer the motion to dismiss to the
merits panel with respect to petitioner’s challenge to
the EPA’s denial of his reconsideration petition. The
parties are directed to address in their briefs the issues presented in that part of the motion to dismiss
rather than incorporate those arguments by reference. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for
summary reversal in No. 24-1386 be denied. The
merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to
warrant summary action. See Cascade Broad. Grp.,
Ltd. v. FCC, 822 F.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(per curiam). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss No. 23-1340 be granted. Because calendar year
2024 has ended, petitioner’s request for interim relief
related to the EPA’s allocation of 2024 allowances
has become moot. See Daimler Trucks N. Am. LLC v.
EPA, 745 F.3d 1212, 1217 (D.C. Cir. 2013). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to hold
in abeyance or expedite be dismissed as moot with
respect to No. 23-1340 and denied with respect to No.
24-1386. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate and the motion to vacate or extend the briefing schedule in No. 23-1340 be dismissed as moot. It
is
FURTHER ORDERED that the emergency motion in No. 24-1386 be dismissed as moot in part and
21a
denied in part. To the extent that petitioner seeks
action on the other motions by April 22, 2025, his
emergency motion is moot because the court has now
acted on those other motions. In all other respects,
petitioner’s emergency motion is denied because he
has not demonstrated an entitlement to his requested relief. Once the EPA has filed a certified index to
the record, petitioner may move to supplement the
record if he believes it inadequate.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition
will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate in No. 23-1340 until
seven days after resolution of any timely petition for
rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.
R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate in No. 241386 until resolution of the remainder of the petition
for review.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Clifton
B.
Cislak,
Clerk
BY: /s/
Selena R. Gancasz
Deputy Clerk
22a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
September Term, 2025
No. 24-1386
EPA-89FR84583
Peter Williams,
Filed On: October 10,
Petitioner
2025
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to supplement
the record, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the
motion to extend time, the opposition thereto, and
the reply; and the petition for rehearing, it is
ORDERED that the motion to supplement the
record and the motion to extend time be denied. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his requested
supplements would bear on whether the court should
grant rehearing. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be denied.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Clifton
B.
Cislak,
Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
23a
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
September Term, 2025
No. 24-1386
EPA-89FR84583
Peter Williams,
Filed On: October 10,
Petitioner
2025
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency and Lee M. Zeldin,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
in his official capacity,
Respondents
BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Henderson,
Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas, Rao, Walker,
Childs, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing
en banc, and the absence of a request by any member
of the court for a vote, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Clifton
B.
Cislak,
Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
24a
5 U.S.C. § 551(13)
For the purpose of this subchapter—
***
(13)“agency action” includes the whole or a part of
an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the
equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act[.]
5 U.S.C. § 553(e)
Each agency shall give an interested person the
right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.
5 U.S.C. § 555(b), (e)
(b) A person compelled to appear in person before
an agency or representative thereof is entitled to be
accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or,
if permitted by the agency, by other qualified
representative. A party is entitled to appear in person
or by or with counsel or other duly qualified
representative in an agency proceeding. So far as the
orderly conduct of public business permits, an
interested person may appear before an agency or its
responsible employees for the presentation,
adjustment, or determination of an issue, request, or
controversy in a proceeding, whether interlocutory,
summary, or otherwise, or in connection with an
agency function. With due regard for the convenience
and necessity of the parties or their representatives
and within a reasonable time, each agency shall
proceed to conclude a matter presented to it. This
subsection does not grant or deny a person who is not
a lawyer the right to appear for or represent others
before an agency or in an agency proceeding.
***
25a
(e) Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in
whole or in part of a written application, petition, or
other request of an interested person made in
connection with any agency proceeding. Except in
affirming a prior denial or when the denial is selfexplanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a
brief statement of the grounds for denial.
5 U.S.C. § 559
This subchapter, chapter 7, and sections 1305,
3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5372, and 7521 of this title,
and the provisions of section 5335(a)(B) of this title
that relate to administrative law judges, do not limit
or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute
or otherwise recognized by law. Except as otherwise
required by law, requirements or privileges relating to
evidence or procedure apply equally to agencies and
persons. Each agency is granted the authority
necessary to comply with the requirements of this
subchapter through the issuance of rules or otherwise.
Subsequent statute may not be held to supersede or
modify this subchapter, chapter 7, sections 1305,
3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5372, or 7521 of this title, or
the provisions of section 5335(a)(B) of this title that
relate to administrative law judges, except to the
extent that it does so expressly.
5 U.S.C. § 702
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency
action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency
action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is
entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court
of the United States seeking relief other than money
damages and stating a claim that an agency or an
officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an
official capacity or under color of legal authority shall
26a
not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the
ground that it is against the United States or that the
United States is an indispensable party. The United
States may be named as a defendant in any such
action, and a judgment or decree may be entered
against the United States: Provided, That any
mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the
Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and
their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other
limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of
the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any
other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2)
confers authority to grant relief if any other statute
that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly
forbids the relief which is sought.
5 U.S.C. § 703
The form of proceeding for judicial review is the
special statutory review proceeding relevant to the
subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the
absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of
legal action, including actions for declaratory
judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory
injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent
jurisdiction. If no special statutory review proceeding
is applicable, the action for judicial review may be
brought against the United States, the agency by its
official title, or the appropriate officer. Except to the
extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity
for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is
subject to judicial review in civil or criminal
proceedings for judicial enforcement.
27a
5 U.S.C. § 704
Agency action made reviewable by statute and
final agency action for which there is no other
adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial
review. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate
agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is
subject to review on the review of the final agency
action. Except as otherwise expressly required by
statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the
purposes of this section whether or not there has been
presented or determined an application for a
declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration, or,
unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and
provides that the action meanwhile is inoperative, for
an appeal to superior agency authority.
5 U.S.C. § 706
To the extent necessary to decision and when
presented, the reviewing court shall decide all
relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and
statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or
applicability of the terms of an agency action. The
reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,
or limitations, or short of statutory right;
28a
(D) without observance of procedure required by
law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case
subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or
otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing
provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the
facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing
court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court
shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited
by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule
of prejudicial error.
28 U.S.C. § 1631
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as
defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal,
including a petition for review of administrative
action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that
court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the
court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer
such action or appeal to any other such court (or, for
cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax
Court, to that court) in which the action or appeal
could have been brought at the time it was filed or
noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it
had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is
transferred on the date upon which it was actually
filed in or noticed for the court from which it is
transferred.
42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)
Except as provided in subsection (b), any person
may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
29a
(1) against any person (including (i) the United
States,
and
(ii)
any
other
governmental
instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by
the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution) who is
alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the
alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in
violation of (A) an emission standard or limitation
under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the
Administrator or a State with respect to such a
standard or limitation,
(2) against the Administrator where there is
alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any
act or duty under this chapter which is not
discretionary with the Administrator, or
(3) against any person who proposes to construct
or constructs any new or modified major emitting
facility without a permit required under part C of
subchapter I (relating to significant deterioration of
air quality) or part D of subchapter I (relating to
nonattainment) or who is alleged to have violated (if
there is evidence that the alleged violation has been
repeated) or to be in violation of any condition of such
permit.
The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without
regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship
of the parties, to enforce such an emission standard or
limitation, or such an order, or to order the
Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case
may be, and to apply any appropriate civil penalties
(except for actions under paragraph (2)). The district
courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
compel (consistent with paragraph (2) of this
subsection) agency action unreasonably delayed,
except that an action to compel agency action referred
to in section 7607(b) of this title which is unreasonably
30a
delayed may only be filed in a United States District
Court within the circuit in which such action would be
reviewable under section 7607(b) of this title. In any
such action for unreasonable delay, notice to the
entities referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be
provided 180 days before commencing such action.
42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)
(1) A petition for review of action of the
Administrator in promulgating any national primary
or secondary ambient air quality standard, any
emission standard or requirement under section 7412
of this title, any standard of performance or
requirement under section 7411 of this title,,3 any
standard under section 7521 of this title (other than a
standard required to be prescribed under section
7521(b)(1) of this title), any determination under
section 7521(b)(5) 1 of this title, any control or
prohibition under section 7545 of this title, any
standard under section 7571 of this title, any rule
issued under section 7413, 7419, or under section 7420
of this title, or any other nationally applicable
regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the
Administrator under this chapter may be filed only in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. A petition for review of the Administrator’s
action in approving or promulgating any
implementation plan under section 7410 of this title
or section 7411(d) of this title, any order under section
7411(j) of this title, under section 7412 of this title,
under section 7419 of this title, or under section 7420
of this title, or his action under section 1857c–
10(c)(2)(A), (B), or (C) of this title (as in effect before
August 7, 1977) or under regulations thereunder, or
revising regulations for enhanced monitoring and
31a
compliance certification programs under section
7414(a)(3) of this title, or any other final action of the
Administrator under this chapter (including any
denial or disapproval by the Administrator under
subchapter I) which is locally or regionally applicable
may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence a petition for review of any
action referred to in such sentence may be filed only
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia if such action is based on a determination
of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that
such action is based on such a determination. Any
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed
within sixty days from the date notice of such
promulgation, approval, or action appears in the
Federal Register, except that if such petition is based
solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day, then
any petition for review under this subsection shall be
filed within sixty days after such grounds arise. The
filing of a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of any otherwise final rule or action
shall not affect the finality of such rule or action for
purposes of judicial review nor extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review of such rule or
action under this section may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to
which review could have been obtained under
paragraph (1) shall not be subject to judicial review in
civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. Where
a final decision by the Administrator defers
performance of any nondiscretionary statutory action
32a
to a later time, any person may challenge the deferral
pursuant to paragraph (1).
42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)
(1) This subsection applies to—
(A) the promulgation or revision of any national
ambient air quality standard under section 7409 of
this title,
(B) the promulgation or revision of an
implementation plan by the Administrator under
section 7410(c) of this title,
(C) the promulgation or revision of any standard
of performance under section 7411 of this title, or
emission standard or limitation under section 7412(d)
of this title, any standard under section 7412(f) of this
title, or any regulation under section 7412(g)(1)(D)
and (F) of this title, or any regulation under section
7412(m) or (n) of this title,
(D) the promulgation of any requirement for solid
waste combustion under section 7429 of this title,
(E) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
pertaining to any fuel or fuel additive under section
7545 of this title,
(F) the promulgation or revision of any aircraft
emission standard under section 7571 of this title,
(G) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
under subchapter IV–A (relating to control of acid
deposition),
(H) promulgation or revision of regulations
pertaining to primary nonferrous smelter orders
under section 7419 of this title (but not including the
granting or denying of any such order),
33a
(I) promulgation or revision of regulations under
subchapter VI (relating to stratosphere and ozone
protection),
(J) promulgation or revision of regulations under
part C of subchapter I (relating to prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality and protection
of visibility),
(K) promulgation or revision of regulations under
section 7521 of this title and test procedures for new
motor vehicles or engines under section 7525 of this
title, and the revision of a standard under section
7521(a)(3) of this title,
(L) promulgation or revision of regulations for
noncompliance penalties under section 7420 of this
title,
(M) promulgation or revision of any regulations
promulgated under section 7541 of this title (relating
to warranties and compliance by vehicles in actual
use),
(N) action of the Administrator under section 7426
of this title (relating to interstate pollution
abatement),
(O) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
pertaining to consumer and commercial products
under section 7511b(e) of this title,
(P) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
pertaining to field citations under section 7413(d)(3)
of this title,
(Q) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
pertaining to urban buses or the clean-fuel vehicle,
clean-fuel fleet, and clean fuel programs under part C
of subchapter II,
34a
(R) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
pertaining to nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles
under section 7547 of this title,
(S) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
relating to motor vehicle compliance program fees
under section 7552 of this title,
(T) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
under subchapter IV–A (relating to acid deposition),
(U) the promulgation or revision of any regulation
under section 7511b(f) of this title pertaining to
marine vessels, and
(V) such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.
The provisions of section 553 through 557 and
section 706 of title 5 shall not, except as expressly
provided in this subsection, apply to actions to which
this subsection applies. This subsection shall not
apply in the case of any rule or circumstance referred
to in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection 553(b) of
title 5.
(2) Not later than the date of proposal of any
action to which this subsection applies, the
Administrator shall establish a rulemaking docket for
such action (hereinafter in this subsection referred to
as a “rule”). Whenever a rule applies only within a
particular State, a second (identical) docket shall be
simultaneously established in the appropriate
regional office of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(3) In the case of any rule to which this subsection
applies, notice of proposed rulemaking shall be
published in the Federal Register, as provided under
section 553(b) of title 5, shall be accompanied by a
statement of its basis and purpose and shall specify
35a
the period available for public comment (hereinafter
referred to as the “comment period”). The notice of
proposed rulemaking shall also state the docket
number, the location or locations of the docket, and
the times it will be open to public inspection. The
statement of basis and purpose shall include a
summary of—
(A) the factual data on which the proposed rule is
based;
(B) the methodology used in obtaining the data
and in analyzing the data; and
(C) the major legal interpretations and policy
considerations underlying the proposed rule.
The statement shall also set forth or summarize
and provide a reference to any pertinent findings,
recommendations, and comments by the Scientific
Review Committee established under section 7409(d)
of this title and the National Academy of Sciences,
and, if the proposal differs in any important respect
from any of these recommendations, an explanation of
the reasons for such differences. All data, information,
and documents referred to in this paragraph on which
the proposed rule relies shall be included in the docket
on the date of publication of the proposed rule.
(4)
(A) The rulemaking docket required under
paragraph (2) shall be open for inspection by the
public at reasonable times specified in the notice of
proposed rulemaking. Any person may copy
documents
contained
in
the
docket.
The
Administrator shall provide copying facilities which
may be used at the expense of the person seeking
copies, but the Administrator may waive or reduce
such expenses in such instances as the public interest
36a
requires. Any person may request copies by mail if the
person pays the expenses, including personnel costs to
do the copying.
(B)
(i) Promptly upon receipt by the agency, all
written comments and documentary information on
the proposed rule received from any person for
inclusion in the docket during the comment period
shall be placed in the docket. The transcript of public
hearings, if any, on the proposed rule shall also be
included in the docket promptly upon receipt from the
person who transcribed such hearings. All documents
which become available after the proposed rule has
been published and which the Administrator
determines are of central relevance to the rulemaking
shall be placed in the docket as soon as possible after
their availability.
(ii) The drafts of proposed rules submitted by the
Administrator to the Office of Management and
Budget for any interagency review process prior to
proposal of any such rule, all documents
accompanying such drafts, and all written comments
thereon by other agencies and all written responses to
such written comments by the Administrator shall be
placed in the docket no later than the date of proposal
of the rule. The drafts of the final rule submitted for
such review process prior to promulgation and all
such written comments thereon, all documents
accompanying such drafts, and written responses
thereto shall be placed in the docket no later than the
date of promulgation.
(5) In promulgating a rule to which this subsection
applies (i) the Administrator shall allow any person to
submit written comments, data, or documentary
37a
information; (ii) the Administrator shall give
interested persons an opportunity for the oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments, in addition
to an opportunity to make written submissions; (iii) a
transcript shall be kept of any oral presentation; and
(iv) the Administrator shall keep the record of such
proceeding open for thirty days after completion of the
proceeding to provide an opportunity for submission
of rebuttal and supplementary information.
(6)
(A) The promulgated rule shall be accompanied by
(i) a statement of basis and purpose like that referred
to in paragraph (3) with respect to a proposed rule and
(ii) an explanation of the reasons for any major
changes in the promulgated rule from the proposed
rule.
(B) The promulgated rule shall also be
accompanied by a response to each of the significant
comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in
written or oral presentations during the comment
period.
(C) The promulgated rule may not be based (in
part or whole) on any information or data which has
not been placed in the docket as of the date of such
promulgation.
(7)
(A) The record for judicial review shall consist
exclusively of the material referred to in paragraph
(3), clause (i) of paragraph (4)(B), and subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (6).
(B) Only an objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the
38a
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within such time or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome
of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a
proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide
the same procedural rights as would have been
afforded had the information been available at the
time the rule was proposed. If the Administrator
refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person
may seek review of such refusal in the United States
court of appeals for the appropriate circuit (as
provided in subsection (b)). Such reconsideration shall
not postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The
effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such
reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or the
court for a period not to exceed three months.
(8) The sole forum for challenging procedural
determinations made by the Administrator under this
subsection shall be in the United States court of
appeals for the appropriate circuit (as provided in
subsection (b)) at the time of the substantive review of
the rule. No interlocutory appeals shall be permitted
with respect to such procedural determinations. In
reviewing alleged procedural errors, the court may
invalidate the rule only if the errors were so serious
and related to matters of such central relevance to the
rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule
would have been significantly changed if such errors
had not been made.
(9) In the case of review of any action of the
Administrator to which this subsection applies, the
court may reverse any such action found to be—
39a
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,
or limitations, or short of statutory right; or
(D) without observance of procedure required by
law, if (i) such failure to observe such procedure is
arbitrary or capricious, (ii) the requirement of
paragraph (7)(B) has been met, and (iii) the condition
of the last sentence of paragraph (8) is met.
(10) Each statutory deadline for promulgation of
rules to which this subsection applies which requires
promulgation less than six months after date of
proposal may be extended to not more than six months
after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a
determination that such extension is necessary to
afford the public, and the agency, adequate
opportunity to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(11) The requirements of this subsection shall
take effect with respect to any rule the proposal of
which occurs after ninety days after August 7, 1977.
42 U.S.C. § 7675(e)(2)(D)
(i) Quantity
Not later than October 1 of each calendar year, the
Administrator shall use the quantity calculated under
subparagraph (B) to determine the quantity of
allowances for the production and consumption of
regulated substances that may be used for the
following calendar year.
(ii) Nature of allowances
(I) In general
40a
An allowance allocated under this section—
(aa) does not constitute a property right; and
(bb) is a limited authorization for the production
or consumption of a regulated substance under this
section.
(II) Savings provision
Nothing in this section or in any other provision of
law limits the authority of the United States to
terminate or limit an authorization described in
subclause (I)(bb).
42 U.S.C. § 7675(k)(1)
(A) Rulemakings
The Administrator may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the functions
of the Administrator under this section.
(B) Delegation
The Administrator may delegate to any officer or
employee of the Environmental Protection Agency
such of the powers and duties of the Administrator
under this section as the Administrator determines to
be appropriate.
(C) Clean Air Act
Sections 113, 114, 304, and 307 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7413, 7414, 7604, 7607) shall apply to
this section and any rule, rulemaking, or regulation
promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to this
section as though this section were expressly included
in title VI of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7671 et seq.).
40 C.F.R. § 84.3 (excerpt)
Person means any individual or legal entity,
including an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, state, municipality, political subdivision
41a
of a state, Indian tribe; any agency, department, or
instrumentality of the United States; and any officer,
agent, or employee thereof.
40 C.F.R. § 84.15(c)
(1) Persons who imported regulated substances in
2020 that were not required to report under 40 CFR
part 98 and were not issued allowances as of October
1, 2021; or
(2) Persons who are newly importing regulated
substances, do not share corporate or common
ownership, corporate affiliation in the past five years,
or familial relations with entities receiving allowances
through this rule.
42a
December 2, 2021
To Whom It May Concern,
Peter Williams/dba The New Era Group intends
to import HFC refrigerants in calendar years 2022
and 2023. The New Era Group, nor myself share
any corporate or common ownership, corporate affiliation within the last five years, or familial relations
with entities receiving allowances through the rule
entitles, “Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons; Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act”. I have read the HFC Allocation Final
Rule, and understand the sections as noted in this
application for allocations as follows:
• 40 CFR 84.5 Prohibitions relating to regulated
substances
• 40 CFR 84.15 Set-aside of application-specific
allowances, production allowances, and consumption allowances
• 40 CFR 84.19 Transfers of allowances
• 40 CFR 84.23 Certification identification generation and tracking
• 40 CFR 84.31(a), (c), (h), and (k) Recordkeeping
and reporting
• 40 CFR 84.33 Auditing of recordkeeping and reporting
• 40 CFR 84.35 Administrative consequences.
Peter Williams/dba The New Era Group agrees
and certifies the following:
43a
1. will follow all applicable DOT standards, and all
cylinders and containers used by
2. will be compliant with the DOT standards found
at CFR Title 49 part §178.
3. will pay any duties consistent with US Customs
and Boarder Protection requirements per Title 19.
4. will comply with all EPA requirements, including
those established under the AIM Act and annual
Greenhouse
Gas
reporting
requirements
§84.15(d)(2)(viii).
The information submitted in this letter and the application form is complete, accurate, and truthful.
§84.15(d)(2)(ix)
Thank you,
/s/
Peter Williams
44a
OMB Control Number: 2060-0735
Expiration Date: 4/30/2022
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act Application for Set-aside of HFC Allowances
***
Is the compa- Date of Incor- State in which State License
ny a woman
poration
Company is
Identifier
or minority §84.15(d)(2)(i Incorporated §84.15(d)(2)(
owned busiv)
§84.15(d)(2)(i
nesss.
v)
§84.15(d)(2)(
ii)
MinorityUnSouth Caroowned busi- Incorperated
lina
ness
***
v)
Non
45a
Memorandum of Minority Self Certifying
To:
From:
Subject
Date:
HFC Allocation
Peter Williams
The file of HFC Set-aside allowance
February 18, 2022
Please accept this communication as an inclusion to
my application for HFC set aside allowances in the
amount of 200,000 MTEVe. The process that is outlined in 40 CFR Chapter 1 Subchapter C part 84
Subpart A § 84.15 refers to a “Person/Persons”.
My application for the aforementioned set-aside allowance was filed as an individual. Therefore, based
on the clear use of the word person or person, I meet
the qualification set-forth in the CFR.
This correspondence is offered to satisfy the application requirement for proof of corporate structure, of
which there is none for myself as an individual.
With Best Regards
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.