749 F.3d 1079
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- This petition for judicial review challenges EPA’s 2012 decision to defer a new multi-pollutant secondary NAAQS for NOx and SOx pending further scientific study, tied to acid rain impacts on aquatic ecosystems.
- EPA concluded the Aquatic Acidification Index-based standard could not be reasonedly supported due to data gaps and uncertainties, and thus chose to pilot data collection rather than promulgate a new standard at that time.
- The existing secondary standards for NOx and SOx were deemed inadequate for protecting aquatic ecosystems from acidification, and EPA sought a regionally nuanced approach rather than a nationwide index-based standard.
- EPA divided the United States into 84 ecoregions and proposed an Aquatic Acidification Index to reflect regional sensitivity, but found inputs too uncertain for a nationwide rule.
- The court applies Chevron deference to EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act and assesses whether EPA’s reasoned judgment, given scientific uncertainty, was arbitrary or capricious under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9).
- Petitioners rely on Massachusetts v. EPA to argue for statutorily compelled regulation, but the court ultimately upholds EPA’s procedural choice to defer based on the record before it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s deferral to adopt a new multi-pollutant standard complied with § 7409(d)(1). | Petitioners contend the Act required promulgation of a new standard. | EPA reasoned a reasoned judgement was not possible given uncertainties. | Deferral upheld; EPA’s reasoned judgment complied with the statute. |
| Whether an Aquatic Acidification Index-based standard would have been lawful. | Petitioners assert such a standard would have been lawful. | EPA deemed implementability and inputs too uncertain to support a lawful standard. | Hypothetical legality not reached; court avoids ruling on it. |
| Whether EPA’s data-gap analysis and pilot program complied with Massachusetts v. EPA and supported a deferral. | Massachusetts requires regulation of known harms; data gaps don’t justify delaying action. | Agency may collect data to enable reasoned regulation and actions can be preventive even with uncertainty. | EPA’s approach consistent with statutory authority and Massachusetts framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (agency must conform to authorizing statute; data collection and reasoned judgment permissible)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (accusation of scientific uncertainty requires careful but not unattainable regulation)
- Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (high deference to agency scientific determinations in complex data disputes)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (reasoned judgment and rational regulation standards under agency action)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (interprets ‘requisite to protect’ standard; limits on arbitrary regulation)