750 F.3d 921
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- In 2013 EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), lowering the level from 15.0 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3 after reviewing recent epidemiological studies and CASAC advice.
- EPA also removed the “spatial averaging” form (which allowed averaging across monitors in a compliance area) and tightened monitoring requirements by adding ~50 near-road monitors in large metropolitan areas.
- Petitioners (industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers) challenged the Final Rule under the Clean Air Act §307(b)(1), arguing EPA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.
- Key petitioner claims: EPA prejudged the need to revise the standard; misweighed or ignored scientific studies; unreasonably eliminated spatial averaging; improperly required near-road monitors and used near-road data for compliance; and issued the NAAQS without necessary implementation guidance.
- The D.C. Circuit applied arbitrary-and-capricious review and substantial deference to EPA’s scientific and policy judgments, and DENIED the petitions for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of annual PM2.5 standard | EPA unlawfully prejudged revision and misweighed/ignored studies; level not supported | EPA relied on broad scientific record and CASAC, set level just below observed means in key studies | Court upheld EPA’s selection of 12.0 µg/m3 as reasonable and within agency discretion |
| Form: elimination of spatial averaging | Removing spatial averaging was unexplained and unnecessary; prior constraints were adequate | Spatial averaging can mask high local exposures for sensitive populations; elimination protects individuals | Court found EPA reasonably explained elimination and did not owe presumptive validity to prior form |
| Monitoring: near-road monitors and use of near-road data for compliance | Near-road monitors will skew compliance (make standard effectively stricter); notice inadequate on compliance use | Ambient air includes near-road locations; monitoring such locations is necessary for accurate, protective ambient measurements; EPA gave adequate notice | Court held EPA’s decision to require near-road monitors and use their data for compliance was reasonable and adequately noticed |
| Procedural / implementation guidance | EPA should have issued implementation guidance before adopting NAAQS | Law requires states to craft state implementation plans; EPA need not issue additional guidance now | Court held EPA was not required to provide implementation guidance before promulgating the NAAQS |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (interpreting "requisite" as "sufficient, but not more than necessary")
- American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding PM NAAQS approach of setting annual standard below long-term means in key studies)
- American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (deference to EPA’s PM standard set slightly below study ranges)
- Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (court asks whether current NAAQS is "requisite," not whether prior standard was presumptively valid)
- City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (deference in evaluating agency’s weighing of scientific evidence)
- Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency need not address immaterial comments)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 744 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (procedural issues concerning petitions for reconsideration)