ATK Launch Systems Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
651 F.3d 1194
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- EPA must establish NAAQS and designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable under 42 U.S.C. § 7407; PM2.5 standards were revised in 2006 triggering designation process across the U.S.; Utah proposed designations, seeking to designate Box Elder and Tooele counties as attainment or unclassifiable; EPA proposed and then issued final Designations Rule including eastern Box Elder and Tooele counties in the Salt Lake City nonattainment area; Petitioners ATK and local entities challenged the inclusion and sought review in this court; EPA moved to dismiss or transfer petitions to the D.C. Circuit, asserting nationwide scope of the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum proper for review | ATK argues in the Tenth Circuit. | EPA contends the action is nationwide and belongs in D.C. | Transfers to D.C. Circuit. |
| National vs. local applicability of the regulation | Designations rule is a national standard applied to local areas. | Rule is nationwide in scope and applies uniformly across states. | Rule is nationally applicable. |
| Framing of challenge (SIP Call analogy) | Challenge targets nationwide application of the standard; argues local effects show arbitrariness. | Challenge targets nationwide interpretation; SIP Call analogy supports D.C. proceeding. | Court treats as national regulation; proper in D.C. |
| Standing and merits sequencing | Standing contested for Tooele County; merits not reached. | Standing is unresolved but not required to decide transfer. | Transfer appropriate; standing and merits to be decided in D.C. |
Key Cases Cited
- Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (multi-factor designations review upheld as reasonable nationwide approach)
- Western Oil & Gas v. EPA, 633 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1980) (designations rule not helpful where regional focus singled out)
- Madison Gas & Electric Co. v. EPA, 4 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 1993) (intermediate case; local factor framed challenge; forum depends on regulation type)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (Supreme Court 2007) (court may defer jurisdictional issues without addressing merits)
- Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979) (venue may be addressed before personal jurisdiction; transfer permissible)
- Texas v. EPA, 2011 WL 710598 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (SIP Call transfers considerations cited by court)