Clean Air Council v. E. Scott Pruitt
862 F.3d 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- EPA promulgated a 2016 New Source Performance Standard addressing fugitive methane and other emissions from the oil and gas sector; initial monitoring compliance deadline was June 3, 2017.
- Industry groups (API, TXOGA, IPAA) filed petitions under CAA §307(d)(7)(B) claiming certain final-rule provisions were not included in the NPRM and sought reconsideration plus a stay pending reconsideration.
- Administrator Pruitt convened reconsideration and issued a 90‑day stay (made retroactive to June 2, 2017) of several provisions: fugitive emissions monitoring, pneumatic pump standards, and professional‑engineer certification requirements.
- EPA later proposed to extend the stay for two years and to broadly reconsider the 2016 Rule; environmental groups filed an emergency motion in the D.C. Circuit to vacate EPA’s administrative stay.
- The court held it had jurisdiction to review the stay (distinguishing reconsideration itself as nonreviewable) because the stay functionally delayed the rule’s effective date and relieved regulated parties of obligations and potential penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review EPA’s stay | Stay is final agency action with immediate legal effect; court may review | Stay is interlocutory and tied to agency discretion; nonreviewable | Court: jurisdiction exists—stay is final as to compliance obligations and thus reviewable |
| Statutory authority to stay under CAA §307(d)(7)(B) | EPA lacked authority because mandatory reconsideration criteria were not met | EPA relied on §307(d)(7)(B) and asserted broad inherent authority to stay | Court: §307(d)(7)(B) authorizes stays only when mandatory reconsideration criteria are met; no inherent power shown |
| Whether reconsideration was “impracticable” to raise (logical‑outgrowth test) | Petitioners: issues were in NPRM or solicited for comment; industry could have commented | EPA: certain provisions were not reasonably foreseeable from NPRM; impracticable to raise | Court: EPA acted arbitrarily; record shows NPRM solicited comment on low‑production wells, alternative means, PE certification, and pneumatic pumps so impracticability not shown |
| Remedy for unlawful stay | Vacatur or judicial stay pending review | EPA sought to maintain stay and extend it administratively | Court: vacated EPA’s 90‑day stay as arbitrary, capricious, and beyond statutory authority; EPA free to pursue reconsideration with notice and comment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (establishes final agency action test: consummation + legal consequences)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay‑pending‑review four‑factor standard cited)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 584 F.3d 1076 (logical‑outgrowth test for notice and comment)
- International Union v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 823 F.2d 608 (agency interim relief treated as final where it modifies mandatory standards)
- Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch, 713 F.2d 802 (suspension of implementation can be reviewable as rulemaking)
- Ciba‑Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430 (once agency publicly articulates unequivocal position expectant of change, review permitted)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (agencies must follow APA notice‑and‑comment when changing rules)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (agencies permitted to change policy but must provide reasoned explanation)
- Friedman v. FAA, 841 F.3d 537 (test for finality contextual; cited for when ongoing proceedings still result in reviewable action)