Alabama Environmental Council v. Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
711 F.3d 1277
11th Cir.2013Background
- Alabama submitted a SIP revision to EPA in 2003 to broaden opacity allowances via a 2% de minimis rule; EPA found it not approvable but proposed conditional approval in 2007, which was later supplemented.
- EPA approved Alabama’s SIP revision in 2008, adopting limits including a 22% daily average opacity for sources with COMS; approval became final in November 2008.
- Citizens challenging the 2008 approval filed petitions; EPA denied reconsideration requests in 2009 after a second reconsideration motion.
- EPA moved for a limited remand in 2009 to reconsider the final rule; the court granted remand and stayed proceedings pending reconsideration.
- On remand, EPA issued a final disapproval in 2011, finding the SIP revision could permit increased PM emissions and was not approvable under §110(c); Alabama Power challenged the 2011 disapproval, Citizens challenged the 2008 approval.
- The court ultimately vacated the 2011 disapproval and affirmed the 2008 approval, with a separate concurrence/dissent addressing statutory interpretation and process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2011 disapproval followed Clean Air Act procedures | Power: §110(k)(5)/(k)(6) required; error determination missing. | EPA acted under §110(k)(6) and remand; authority valid. | Disapproval vacated; improper §110(k)(6) error-determination not shown. |
| Whether EPA acted within inherent authority or Court remand order | Power: inherent authority or remand order justified action. | EPA lacks inherent authority beyond statutory provisions; remand order inconclusive for 2011 action. | Inherent authority and remand order did not justify 2011 disapproval. |
| Whether the 2008 EPA approval complied with §110(i) interference standard | Citizens: 2008 approval violated §110(i) by permitting increased PM emissions. | EPA's interpretation of interference is permissible under Chevron step two. | 2008 approval upheld; interpretation permissible, not a violation. |
| Whether automatic exemption and director's discretion provisions were reviewable | Citizens challenged SSM-like exemptions; time-barred and constructively reopened improperly. | Exemptions were longstanding SIP provisions; not properly reopened for review. | Claims dismissed as untimely and not meaningfully reopened. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky Resources Council v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006) (interpretation of interference and Chevron step two)
- Sierra Club v. Ga. Power Co., 443 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2006) (two-stage SIP/NAAQS framework; state flexibility)
- New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (inherent authority limits and procedural constraints)
- Mich. v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency authority confined to statute; Chevron framework)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (constructive reopening doctrine and safety valves in SIP revisions)