Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
415 U.S. App. D.C. 295
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- PVC production emits hazardous air pollutants, including known carcinogens; EPA issued MACT-based PVC Rule in 2012 limiting emissions from major and area sources.
- Petitioners, PVC manufacturers, challenge the Rule on grounds of notice and comment adequacy, data quality, and Rule design, including wastewater and process-vent limits and monitoring requirements.
- EPA revisited preexisting vinyl chloride regulation; prior Rulemaking (HON Rule, 1992; 2002 rule) vacated for incomplete coverage; 2012 rule aimed to complete coverage by including PVC production emissions.
- EPA’s reconsideration process is ongoing, with data collection and a planned April 2016 completion; petitioners seek judicial review notwithstanding reconsideration.
- Court denies petitions for review on preserved merits and unpreserved challenges; holds some objections barred for lack of exhaustion and preserves others for reconsideration.
- Dissent argues for stays on the wastewater limits under APA § 705 due to conceded flaws and irreparable harm; majority declines stay
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wastewater limit reviewability | Petitioners argue wastewater limit based on faulty data and lacked adequate notice. | EPA reconsideration proceedings are ongoing; objections were not preserved in notice and comment. | Barred from immediate merits review; review deferred pending reconsideration. |
| PVC-combined process vent limits | Final PVC-combined limits were issued with inadequate notice and data; need data for non-PVC co-vent emissions. | Reasonable approach; no subcategorization by control technology; data insufficient for alternative formats. | Reasonable; not improper to avoid subcategorization; claims rejected. |
| Monitoring and bypass provisions | Regulations on bypasses and pressure-relief device monitoring are arbitrary or beyond-the-floor MACT. | Regulations are rational, necessary to detect and manage emissions. | Not arbitrary or capricious; upheld. |
| Exhaustion and reconsideration bar | EPA has delayed reconsideration; objections should be reviewable notwithstanding reconsideration. | Exhaustion bar applies; agency must resolve reconsideration with same rights as original rulemaking. | Objections raised in reconsideration are barred; preserved merits reviewed later as reconsideration progresses. |
| Stay of rule pending reconsideration | APA § 705 stay should apply; wastewater limits stay warranted given conceded flaws. | No stay under Clean Air Act three-month limit; APA stay not required to be granted. | Petitioners not entitled to stay; majority declines stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (establishes MACT floor and beyond-the-floor concepts)
- Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (vacatur/remand for incomplete regulation of listed pollutants)
- UARG v. EPA, 744 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (exhaustion and reconsideration principles for EPA actions)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 291 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (limits on judicial review where agency delays; exhaustion considerations)
- Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (stay of rule pending reconsideration under APA cited by dissent)