National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Department of Interior
794 F. Supp. 2d 39
D.D.C.2011Background
- NPCA and related environmental groups filed suit under the APA asserting unreasonable delay by DOI and USDA in responding to three petitions for reasonably attributable visibility impairment certifications under the Clean Air Act.
- Petitions were dated May 5, 2009 (Navajo Generating Station), June 24, 2009 (Centralia Power Plant), and February 16, 2010 (Four Corners Power Plant).
- FMLs for the lands at issue were the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, with intervenors joining on behalf of the Defendants.
- On March 8, 2011, DOI issued letters stating it would address BART through ongoing regional haze determinations and that the petitions were fully and finally responded to; on March 17, 2011 USDA deferred action pending EPA final BART determinations.
- The court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, holding the agency responses were a final denial and moot the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the agency responses moot the action? | NPCA argues petitions remain unresolved and the responses do not definitively deny them. | DOI and USDA contend their letters fully and finally responded, mooting the suit. | Yes; the suit is moot due to final agency denial. |
| Are the petitions reviewable when an agency defers/mantains an ongoing process? | Defendants’ deferment does not constitute a final denial to review under APA. | Defendants cited ongoing EPA/state actions and finality of their responses. | Final denial found; review is unavailable. |
| Did the court have subject-matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)? | Court should compel agency action for unreasonable delay. | Agency responses definitively denied the petitions, mooting the case. | Court lacked jurisdiction; case dismissed as moot. |
| Was the plaintiffs’ claim properly reviewable given the finality of agency action? | Finality of denial was not clearly established by the letters. | Letters express a definitive decision to deny review in light of ongoing actions. | Final agency actions; claims moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency delay remedies available when no final action)
- Families for Freedom v. Napolitano, 628 F. Supp. 2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (definitive response required to avoid mootness)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 680 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (corrective action can moot a pending challenge)
- Sierra Club v. Browner, 130 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2001) (mootness after agency action)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (final agency action requires consummation of decisionmaking and legal consequences)
- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Com'n, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (final agency action includes denial of rulemaking petitions)