.

Client Alert

德汇美国破产法问答(系列之三) Dorsey U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&A Series Three

October 27, 2020

by Samuel S. Kohn, Alessandra Glorioso, Catherine X. Pan-Giordano, Rachel P. Stoian, and Abby Fang

Download as a PDF

Share this page

德汇律师事务所 外国供应商破产法团队
Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers

希望我们的美国破产法问答系列一和系列二“如何应对美国客户申请第11章破产保护”的文章对您有所裨益。本文为该系列第三篇文章,将针对破产程序初期的相关问题,包括债务人必须进行哪些披露、债务人在破产案件启动时通常会寻求的救济,以及“关键供应商”获得赔偿问题进行讲解。

We hope that you enjoyed Series One and Two of our U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&As regarding what to do when a customer files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This Series Three will address questions relating to the early stages of the bankruptcy process, including what disclosures debtors must make, what relief debtors will generally seek at the outset of the case, and how “critical vendors” are treated.

1. 问题一:债务人在破产案件中必须披露哪些信息以及债权人如何获得债务人财务状况信息?

Question: What information is the debtor required to disclose in its bankruptcy case and how can a creditor obtain information about the financial status of the debtor?

披露是破产程序的一大标志。债务人必须随第11章申请一起,提交其最大无担保债权人名单,并提供其资产和负债的估值。案件初期阶段,尽管债务人通常得以获准延长提交期限,但债务人必须提交详细的明细表和财务事务声明。明细表必须包括所有已知债权人和股本证券持有人的名单(注明债权金额与类型)、待履行合同及未到期租约,及任何类型或性质的资产。财务事务声明要求披露的信息包括:申请破产前发生的转让及所有未决诉讼。第11章案件进行期间,债务人必须每月提交经营报告,列明案件期间每个月的所有收支情况。

Disclosure is the hallmark of the bankruptcy process. Along with the Chapter 11 petition, debtors must file a list of their largest unsecured creditors and provide estimates of their assets and liabilities. Early in the case, a debtor must file detailed schedules and a statement of financial affairs, though debtors often obtain extensions of time to file such documents. The schedules include, among other things, lists of all known creditors and equity security holders (along with amounts and types of claims), executory contracts and unexpired leases, and assets of any type or nature. The statement of financial affairs requires disclosure of, among other things, transfers made in the lead up to the bankruptcy filing and all pending litigation. During the course of a Chapter 11 case, debtors are required to file monthly operating reports detailing all receipts and disbursements during each month of the case.

所有该等文件均可通过“法院电子档案公众查询系统”(PACER)在线查询,PACER就每一浏览页收取费用。美国律师事务所通常会注册PACER账号。在大型案件中,债务人会聘请第三方服务提供商为此专设一个网站,在该网站上免费公开该等信息。鉴于该等破产申请往往涉及大量文件,最有效的做法是咨询美国破产法律师,以获取并分析相关信息,并跟进破产案件进程。

All of these documents are available online through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), which charges a fee for each page viewed. A U.S. law firm typically has a PACER subscription. In very large cases, debtors may hire a third party service provider to make such information available for free on a website specifically dedicated for this purpose. Given the often voluminous nature of these filings, it is most efficient to consult with a U.S. bankruptcy attorney to obtain and analyze the relevant information and monitor the bankruptcy case as it proceeds.

2. 问题二:债务人在案件初始阶段,会寻求何种救济?供应商可以如何保护自己?

Question: What relief will the debtor seek at the very beginning of the case and how can a supplier protect itself?

提交第11章申请后,大多数债务人会马上提交各类“首日动议”,以获准破产法院的批准来采取那些对维持债务人经营所必要的,但没有破产法院同意就不可采取的若干行动。首日动议一般包括:请求支付特定破产前债务(例如,对关键和/或外国供应商、雇员的债务及保险金),获得破产后融资,以及使用原本受限于担保权益的现金抵押。因此,有必要咨询美国破产法律师,以确定该等动议是否会、以及会如何影响您在破产案件中的权利。

Soon after filing a Chapter 11 petition, most debtors file a variety of “first day motions” to obtain permission to take certain actions necessary to keep the debtor’s business going that cannot be taken absent permission from the bankruptcy court. First day motions usually include requests to pay certain pre-bankruptcy debts (such as critical and/or foreign vendors, employees, and insurance premiums), to obtain post-bankruptcy financing, and to use cash collateral that is otherwise subject to a secured interest. It would be worthwhile to consult with a U.S. bankruptcy attorney to determine whether and how such motions may impact your rights in the bankruptcy case. 

3. 问题三:被债务人认定为“关键供应商”对供应商有何影响?

Question: What is the impact of the debtor recognizing a supplier as a “critical vendor”?

如上所述,在第11章破产案件中经常提出的首日动议中,包括了寻求法院的批准以向债务人视为“关键”供应商的供应商支付破产前的债务。关键供应商对债务人之后的经营(例如,重要部件、零件或设备的供应商)至关重要,尽管债务人提出破产申请,但债务人仍有意继续与之保持合同或业务关系。若未获得就破产前债务向该等关键供应商付款的批准,那么,在破产重组计划(该重组计划未必允许对该等债务进行全额清偿)得到确认之前,该等债务无法得到偿付。

As noted above, among the first day motions frequently filed in Chapter 11 case are those seeking authority to pay the pre-bankruptcy claims of vendors that the debtor deems to be “critical.” Critical vendors are those that are essential to the debtor’s operations going forward (such as suppliers of important components, parts, or equipment) and with whom the debtor desires to have a continuing contractual or business relationship notwithstanding its bankruptcy filing. Absent authority to pay such critical vendors on account of their pre-bankruptcy claims, no payment would be made on account of such claims until a plan is confirmed which may not provide for payment in full to such claims.

获得批准向关键供应商付款的债务人,通常具有相当大的自由裁量权,根据其商业判断确定哪些供应商符合关键供应商的资格可以获得偿付,以及具体偿付金额。此外,债务人获得批准向关键供应商付款的情况下,债务人通常被明确准许,以供应商同意按照破产申请前债务人与供应商之间适用的相同或更优的条款继续开展业务为前提条件,向关键供应商付款。

Debtors obtaining authority to pay critical vendors are generally given broad discretion to use their business judgment to determine which vendors qualify as critical for purposes of payment and how much to pay them. Moreover, to the extent debtors are given the authority to pay critical vendors, they are often expressly permitted to condition payments to critical vendors on those vendors agreeing to proceed according to terms as good as or better than those that applied to the relationship between the debtor and the vendor prior to the bankruptcy filing. 

4. 问题四:什么是债权人“341会议”,供应商是否应当参加?

Question: What is the “Section 341 meeting” of creditors and should suppliers attend?

债权人341会议涉及,就债务人的主要资产、债务和重组意图,通过债务人代表对已宣誓债务人进行盘问。第11章案件中,由美国联邦破产受托人办公室(隶属于美国司法部)代表主持召开会议,并主导提问。债权人可自由出席会议,并被允许对债务人的财务状况进行盘问。审理破产案件的法官不出席该等会议,该等会议也不会在法庭进行。

The Section 341 meeting of creditors involves an examination of the debtor under oath, through its representatives, regarding the debtor’s primary assets, liabilities, and intentions regarding reorganization. In Chapter 11 cases, the meeting is conducted, and the bulk of the questioning is done, by a representative of the Office of the U.S. Trustee (a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice). Creditors are welcome to attend the meeting and are permitted to examine the debtor regarding its finances as well. The judge in the bankruptcy case is not present at these meetings and they are not conducted in a courtroom.

债权人会议必须于提交破产申请之后的21至40日之间召开,尽管美国联邦破产受托人办公室可以延期会议。供应商应考虑让其美国破产法律顾问出席会议,这样既可以更好地了解案件进展,又可以在需要时对已宣誓债务人进行盘问。

The meeting of creditors must occur between 21 and 40 days after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, although the U.S. Trustee’s office may adjourn the meeting. Suppliers should consider having their U.S. bankruptcy counsel attend the meeting, both to get a better sense of where the case is headed and to examine the debtor under oath, if desired.

5. 问题五:如果供应商认为债务人是出于恶意或基于其他原因提交破产申请的,供应商是否可以寻求驳回破产申请?

Question: Can a supplier seek to dismiss the bankruptcy case if it believes it was filed in bad faith or other grounds for doing so?

第11章破产案可能因各种原因被驳回,包括出于“恶意”提交破产申请。破产法院在考虑第11章破产案件是否出于恶意被申请时,会基于总体情况作出综合判断——债务人是否确实需要得到第11章的保护,以及有意借助破产法提供的实质性利益实现其财务重组。实践中,在第11章破产案件起始阶段,破产法院倾向于谨慎驳回案件,通常会继续观察是否有其他驳回依据,例如,未能遵守法庭命令,或者未及时提供信息或出席会议。

A Chapter 11 bankruptcy case may be dismissed for a variety of reasons, including that the case was filed in “bad faith.” When considering whether a Chapter 11 case is filed in bad faith, the bankruptcy court will look at the totality of the circumstances and decide whether the debtor actually needs Chapter 11 protection and intends to use the substantial benefits afforded by bankruptcy law to reorganize its financial affairs. In practice, bankruptcy courts tend to be cautious to dismiss a Chapter 11 case at the outset and usually wait to see whether there are other bases for dismissal, such as failure to comply with a court order or failure to timely provide information or attend meetings. 

***

请您密切关注本系列的第四篇文章,该文章将解答关于如何提交索赔请求以及如何解决第11章破产案件的问题。

Please keep an eye out for Series Four which will address questions relating to how claims are filed and dealt with in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

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

德汇律师事务所是一家拥有超过百年历史的国际律师事务所,在美国、加拿大、欧洲和亚洲(包括北京、上海和香港)设有 21 家办公室。德汇为各行各业的企业提供全方位法律服务,并被《钱伯斯美国》评选为“领先律师事务所”以及被U.S. News评选为“最佳律师事务所”。

Dorsey & Whitney is an international law firm with more than 100 years of history and 21 offices in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Dorsey serves business organizations across a wide range of industries and is recognized by Chambers USA and U.S. News Best Law Firms.

外国供应商破产法团队

Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.