Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. Environmental Protection Agency
416 U.S. App. D.C. 69
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2008 (from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm) and then conducted area-designations with states under 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d), using guidance (2008 Guidance) recommending presumptive metropolitan-area boundaries and a multi-factor analysis for contribution.
- States submitted initial area recommendations and air-quality data; EPA allowed optional early certification of 2011 data (deadline Feb 29, 2012) otherwise used 2008–2010 data; EPA then issued proposed modifications, a public comment period, and final designations in May–June 2012.
- Petitioners (states, counties, industry, environmental groups) challenged numerous EPA designations, raising statutory-interpretation, arbitrary-and-capricious APA, data-quality, and constitutional claims; consolidated petitions were filed in D.C. Circuit.
- EPA applied a weight-of-evidence, multi-factor contribution test (collapsed from nine to five factors) and used tools including HYSPLIT back-trajectory analysis and source-apportionment modeling as appropriate.
- Key contested issues included EPA’s interpretation of “nearby” (Delaware, Connecticut), reliance (or not) on private monitoring (Uinta Basin), timing and certification of 2011 data (Sierra Club), and the Wise County, TX nonattainment designation (modeling, data adjustments, and constitutional challenges).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “nearby” for nonattainment designations (Del., Conn.) | Delaware/Conn. urged broad multi-state "nearby" areas (up to ~16–18 states) to capture long-range transport. | EPA reasonably used metropolitan-area (CBSA/CSA or county) presumptive boundaries; long-range transport addressed by other statutory/regulatory tools. | EPA’s interpretation of "nearby" as metropolitan-area presumptive boundary is reasonable under Chevron and upheld. |
| Use of private monitoring data for designation (Uinta Basin) | WildEarth Guardians: private 2009–2011 monitors showed exceedances; EPA should designate nonattainment. | EPA: private data lacked post-collection QA/audit documentation; insufficiently verifiable for designation purposes. | EPA reasonably declined to base designation on unverified private data and lawfully designated area "unclassifiable." |
| Refusal to use uncertified 2011 data / timing (Sierra Club) | Sierra Club: EPA had uncertified 2011 data and should have used it or delayed final designations until May 1 or consent-decree deadline. | EPA: uncertified data remain subject to state validation until certification; cannot delay indefinitely or miss settled consent-decree deadline. | EPA reasonably refused to rely on uncertified data and was not arbitrary in not delaying final designations. |
| Two-step matched-dataset approach (Memphis/DeSoto County) | Mississippi: EPA should have used early-certified 2009–2011 data (mismatched across states) and not designated DeSoto County. | EPA: needed a matched dataset across the CBSA to determine compliance at all monitors; relied on most recent matched set (2008–2010). | EPA’s use of matched datasets and application of multi-factor test to find DeSoto County contributed was reasonable. |
| Wise County, TX designation — modeling & data treatment | Texas and industry: EPA misused HYSPLIT, improperly adjusted Texas source-apportionment model, treated similarly situated counties inconsistently. | EPA: HYSPLIT appropriate for light/variable winds; corrected methodological flaws in Texas model and examined absolute (max) impacts given limited dataset; holistic multi-factor approach justified. | EPA’s use of HYSPLIT and modifications to source-apportionment modeling were reasonable; designation upheld. |
| Wise County, TX — constitutional challenges (Tenth, Spending Clause, Commerce) | Texas: EPA’s override commandeers state regulators, spending-penalty coercive, and designation exceeds Commerce Clause. | EPA: Clean Air Act allows federal administration if states fail; highway-fund sanction limited in scope; regulating emission sources directly affects interstate commerce. | Court rejected constitutional challenges: sanctions not coercive like NFIB; designation within Commerce Clause authority; no Tenth Amendment commandeering. |
| Wise County, TX — due process / bias | Texas: EPA official had prior advocacy and comments suggest closed mind; should have recused. | EPA: no clear-and-convincing showing of unalterably closed mind; decisionmaking record shows consideration of comments and data. | No due-process disqualification; plaintiffs failed to show an unalterably closed mind. |
Key Cases Cited
- Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir.) (upholding EPA multi-factor, totality-of-the-circumstances contribution approach)
- ATK Launch Sys., Inc. v. EPA, 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir.) (EPA may use holistic contribution analysis; deference on technical judgments)
- City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir.) (extreme deference to EPA on scientific data quality judgments)
- Pennsylvania Dep’t of Envtl. Protection v. EPA, 429 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.) ("nearby" ambiguous; defer to reasonable EPA interpretation)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir.) (interpretive ambiguities in designation statutes)
- Allied Local & Reg’l Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir.) (APA review standard for NAAQS designations)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S.) (agency action upheld if rational connection between facts and choice)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (U.S.) (Spending Clause limits; coercion analysis)