Friends of the Earth v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
934 F. Supp. 2d 40
D.D.C.2013Background
- FOE petitioned EPA in 2006 to make an endangerment finding for lead emissions from general aviation piston-engine aircraft and to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act §231(a)(2)(A).
- FOE claimed EPA’s failure to respond and delay in endangerment determination was unlawful under the Clean Air Act §304 and the APA.
- EPA issued a final decision on July 19, 2012 denying the petition and stating it would not yet propose endangerment standards, but would consider an endangerment proceeding in the future.
- FOE filed suit in 2012 alleging unreasonable delay under §304(a)(2), §231(a)(2)(A), and the APA; EPA moved for summary judgment on jurisdiction and merits.
- The Court treated EPA’s motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge and held the citizen-suit provision does not authorize the requested endangerment-determination action because the act is discretionary, not nondiscretionary.
- The Court thus granted EPA’s summary-judgment motion, finding no jurisdiction to compel the endangerment determination under §304(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the citizen-suit provision waives sovereign immunity here. | FOE relies on §7604(a) to compel the endangerment finding. | EPA contends the duty is discretionary and §304 does not apply. | Not jurisdictionally cognizable; discretionary duty not subject to §304(a). |
| Whether the endangerment determination is a nondiscretionary duty. | Endangerment finding is mandatory under §231(a)(2)(A). | Text supports discretion; no clear mandatory endangerment duty. | Discretionary; not a nondiscretionary duty under §231(a)(2)(A). |
| Whether alternative avenues (e.g., petition denial review) preserve jurisdiction. | EPA denial could be reviewed for reasonableness under §307; discovery possible. | Review would occur in the court of appeals; district court lacks jurisdiction. | Review via §307 exclusive to the court of appeals; district court lacks jurisdiction for §304 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 794 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.D.C. 2011) (held endangerment determination nondiscretionary under §231(a)(2)(A) according to district court)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (EPA can avoid action only if it explains why it cannot exercise discretion)
- National Wildlife Federation v. Browner, — (—) (distinguished; Clean Water Act case cited for comparison (requires official reporter citation))
- Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas, 870 F.2d 892 (2d Cir. 1989) (non-discretionary duty to decide revisions; distinguishable)
- Sierra Club v. Leavitt, 355 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D.D.C. 2005) (discretionary vs nondiscretionary review under §304)
- Am. Lung Ass’n v. Reilly, 962 F.2d 258 (2d Cir. 1992) (nondiscretionary duty concept under §304)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (limits district court power to compel discretionary agency actions)