Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. McCarthy
261 F. Supp. 3d 53
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate and periodically (no less often than every 8 years) review and, if necessary, revise national emission standards for listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants (RTRs combining §7412(d)(6) and §7412(f)(2) duties).
- Plaintiffs (environmental groups) sued after EPA admitted it failed to complete RTRs for 13 source categories whose 8‑year review deadlines had passed. The dispute at summary judgment was limited to the timeframe for EPA to complete the overdue RTRs.
- Plaintiffs proposed completing all 13 RTRs within 2 years (staggered: 7 within ~8 months then final rules within 1 year; remaining 6 proposed within 20 months and final rules within 2 years).
- EPA proposed a staggered schedule completing all RTTs within ~4.5 years, supported by a declaration describing a 9‑phase rulemaking process and current staffing/resource constraints in the Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD).
- The court applied the standard for compelling nondiscretionary agency action (42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)) and the D.C. Circuit’s “impossibility” inquiry when setting deadlines, balancing Congress’s timeline expectations against the agency’s resource/technical claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA violated mandatory RTR deadlines | Plaintiffs: EPA failed to complete required RTRs for 13 categories after 8 years | EPA: effectively conceded noncompliance but sought time to complete rulemakings | Court found EPA admitted failure; liability established (remedy only) |
| Appropriate remedial timetable | Plaintiffs: Court should order completion within 2 years (most expeditious, consistent with statutory urgency) | EPA: Needs ~4.5 years due to 9‑phase process, data collection, OMB reviews, staffing limits; shorter schedule may be impossible | Court rejected 2‑year compression as too short and EPA’s timetable as too lax; imposed compromise schedule |
| Burden of proving impossibility | Plaintiffs: Agency must show impossibility to avoid an expedited schedule | EPA: asserts heavy burden satisfied by technical complexity and resource limits | Court held EPA did not meet its heavy burden to prove impossibility for a more expedited schedule |
| Allocation/prioritization of RTRs | Plaintiffs: urged quicker completion but declined to prioritize categories | EPA: asked to prioritize and sequence rulemakings over time | Court declined to set category‑specific priorities; ordered EPA to finish at least 7 RTRs by Dec. 31, 2018, and remaining 6 by June 30, 2020 |
Key Cases Cited
- NRDC v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (district courts may set enforceable deadlines for nondiscretionary agency action but should not require impossibilities)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (agency bears heavy burden to show a proposed schedule is an impossibility)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact requires trial)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (court scrutiny of agency delay and rejection of agency timetable when insufficient diligence shown)
- Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 602 F. Supp. 892 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (agency cannot avoid deadlines merely by asserting that more study will improve rules)