ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
399 U.S. App. D.C. 273
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Final PM2.5 24-hour designation designated eastern Box Elder and Tooele Counties as nonattainment in Salt Lake City area due to topography and inversions.
- EPA applied a nine-factor case-by-case designations test to determine contributions to nearby violations.
- Utah counties’ portions designated nonattainment were within the same airshed as Salt Lake City and subject to transport of emissions.
- Petitioners challenged EPA’s comparison to east coast attainments (Warren/N Hartford) and questioned modeling and wind analyses.
- EPA’s wind data, CES, and HYSPLIT modeling were argued to be flawed; EPA maintained its analysis used best available information and corroborating data.
- Court reviews under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); standard is whether EPA’s actions are arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law; deference to agency scientific judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s nine-factor analysis was arbitrary in designating Box Elder and Tooele. | Petitioners claim dissimilar treatment vs. Warren/Hartford. | EPA used case-by-case nine-factor framework; no uniform threshold. | Not arbitrary; nine-factor holistic approach upheld. |
| Whether EPA properly treated population, growth, and commuting data for the designated portions. | Box Elder/Tooele data mischaracterized density and growth. | Portions analyzed; best available information used. | Reasonable treatment under case-by-case design. |
| Whether EPA’s use of modeling and wind data supported inclusion of Box Elder/Tooele. | HYSPLIT limitations and wind data flaws shown. | Model corroborated by ground meteorological data; reasonable. | Modeling and wind analyses reasonably supported designation. |
| Whether including ATK’s Box Elder operations within the nonattainment area was arbitrary. | ATK located below inversion layer; claim overreach. | Promontory Mountains and jurisdictional boundaries justify partial-county designation. | Reasonable inclusion of ATK within nonattainment area. |
Key Cases Cited
- Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holistic nine-factor approach; no strict thresholds; deference to EPA analyzed data)
- Allied Local & Reg’l Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (deference to technical agency judgments in rulemaking)
- City of Champaign v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (emphasizes deference in evaluating scientific data)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (high level of deference in EPA administration of CAA)
- Am. Coke & Coal Chems. Inst. v. EPA, 452 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (evaluating scientific data within EPA expertise)
- Bluewater Network v. EPA, 372 F.3d 404 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (deference to EPA’s technical analyses)