45 F.4th 380
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- Chevron sought EPA guidance whether its Gail and Grace offshore platforms (OCS sources within 25 miles of Ventura County, CA) would cease to qualify as OCS sources after completing Pre‑Abandonment and Abandonment phases of decommissioning.
- Ventura County Air Pollution Control District has delegated OCS permitting authority for that area; EPA and the District have an agreement reserving certain consultative and review roles to EPA.
- In Jan 2021 EPA told Chevron the platforms would cease to be OCS sources after the stated phases; in Apr 2021 EPA revised that position, saying applicability depends on subsequent activities/equipment at the site and that the local District is the appropriate authority to make the determination.
- Chevron filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging EPA’s April letter; it also filed a protective petition in the Ninth Circuit. EPA moved to dismiss in D.C. Circuit, arguing the April letter is locally/regional and venue lies in the Ninth Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit declined to reach the merits and dismissed Chevron’s D.C. petition for lack of venue, holding the April letter is locally or regionally applicable and venue lies exclusively in the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court resolve venue before resolving whether the agency action is final? | Chevron implicitly: court should decide finality/jurisdiction first. | EPA: venue is a nonjurisdictional threshold issue that can be decided first. | Court: Venue is a threshold, non‑jurisdictional issue and may be decided before finality. |
| Is EPA’s April 2021 letter “nationally applicable” under 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1)? | Chevron: April letter has nationwide application (and displaces the Jan letter). | EPA: April letter is case‑specific to Chevron’s two platforms and therefore local/regional. | Court: April letter is locally or regionally applicable. |
| Was EPA’s Jan 2021 letter nationally applicable (as Chevron argued to support April’s national scope)? | Chevron: Jan letter was nationally applicable, implying the April letter must be national. | EPA: Jan letter was likewise confined to the specific Chevron facts. | Court: Jan letter also confined to specific facts and thus localized. |
| Given the April letter’s scope, which circuit has proper venue? | Chevron: D.C. Circuit is proper forum. | EPA: Venue lies exclusively in the Ninth Circuit (the appropriate regional circuit). | Court: Venue lies only in the Ninth Circuit; D.C. petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (threshold nonmerits issues may be resolved before jurisdictional questions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts generally must determine jurisdiction before merits)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844 (agency action denying petition tied to a single permit is locally/regionally applicable)
- NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224 (example of a nationally applicable EPA regulation)
- Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA, 808 F.3d 875 (look to the face of agency action, not practical effects, for applicability)
- Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453 (applying a broad regulation to a specific context does not make the action nationally applicable)
- Valero Energy Corp. v. EPA, 927 F.3d 532 (final agency action requirement under the Clean Air Act is jurisdictional)