American Road & Transportation Builders Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
403 U.S. App. D.C. 313
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- ARTBA challenges EPA regulations on nonroad engines and California SIP revisions in two actions in district court and appeals.
- The California SIP revision (2011) approved by EPA arguably imposes development-project emission reductions; ARTBA commented and petitioned to amend Section 209(e) regulations.
- EPA approved the SIP revision and declined to revisit Section 209(e) regulations, citing that ARTBA’s petition was a renewal of prior requests.
- ARTBA filed suit in the DC Circuit challenging the SIP approval; the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction based on local action rules for SIPs.
- The court previously dismissed ARTBA’s challenge as time-barred under the Clean Air Act 60-day filing window, with after-arising grounds and reopening discussed but not applicable.
- The DC Circuit dismissed ARTBA’s petition for review for lack of timely, properly filed review of EPA’s 209(e) regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the California SIP approval lies in the DC or Ninth Circuit. | ARTBA contends nationwide scope to keep in DC. | EPA argues SIP is locally applicable and venue lies in Ninth Circuit. | Venue proper in Ninth Circuit; California SIP challenge dismissed. |
| Whether ARTBA's challenge to EPA's 209(e) regulations is time-barred. | ARTBA claims after-arising ground via SIP petition allows review. | Clean Air Act 60-day window bars review; exceptions do not apply. | Time-barred; petition for review dismissed. |
| Whether EPA’s failure to find nationwide scope allows judicial review of SIP action. | ARTBA argues potential nationwide effect supports review. | EPA’s decision not to designate nationwide scope is reviewable under APA but was reasonable. | Not needed as venue and time-bar dispositive; SIP action treated as local. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (early preemption ruling on Section 209(e))
- American Road & Transportation Builders Association v. EPA, 588 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (ARTBA I; time-bar under Clean Air Act; ripeness/reopening discussed)
- Texas Mun. Power Agency v. EPA, 89 F.3d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (SIP action treated as locally applicable)
- ATK Launch Sys., Inc. v. EPA, 651 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2011) (SIPs as local action; jurisdictional considerations)
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (focus on face of rulemaking for national applicability)
- National Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior, 70 F.3d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exceptional treatment of reopening and after-arising grounds)