882 F.3d 1138
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- This appeal challenges EPA’s 2015 Final Rule implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and established anti‑backsliding and SIP implementation guidance. South Coast and several environmental groups petitioned for review.
- Key statutory framework: Clean Air Act requirements for designations, classifications, SIPs, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)/15% rate‑of‑progress, RACT, New Source Review (NSR), conformity, maintenance plans (§§ 7407, 7409, 7410, 7502, 7505a, 7511a). EPA must adopt anti‑backsliding controls when relaxing a NAAQS (§ 7502(e)).
- South Coast argued EPA misinterpreted the phrase “in the area” for RFP/RoP credit, claiming credit may be taken for upwind (outside nonattainment) reductions within a transport‑coupled area.
- Environmental Petitioners challenged multiple Final Rule provisions as unlawfully relaxing anti‑backsliding controls (e.g., waiving attainment deadlines tied to the 1997 NAAQS; removing NSR and conformity for areas that remained 1997 nonattainment but met 2008; allowing conversion of active requirements to contingency measures; creating a ‘‘redesignation substitute’’; alternative baseline years; averaging for NOx RACT; waiving second maintenance plans).
- The D.C. Circuit applied Chevron review and: denied South Coast’s petition; granted in part and denied in part the Environmental Petitioners’ petition, vacating several Final Rule provisions that improperly relaxed statutory anti‑backsliding or redesignation requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “in the area” for RFP/15%/3% means only emissions inside the nonattainment area or can include a larger transport‑coupled area | South Coast: "in the area" can reasonably mean a larger transport‑coupled area allowing credit for upwind reductions | EPA: statutory text and precedent require baseline emissions measured within the nonattainment area | Court: "in the area" unambiguous — refers to baseline emissions within the nonattainment area; South Coast petition denied |
| Whether EPA lawfully revoked 1997 NAAQS without preserving statutory attainment‑deadline consequences (anti‑backsliding) | Environmental Petitioners: revocation unlawfully waived attainment‑deadline penalties and controls | EPA: may revoke superseded NAAQS if adequate anti‑backsliding measures remain | Court: EPA failed to preserve controls tied to attainment deadlines; vacated waiver of statutory attainment deadlines |
| Whether EPA may remove NSR and conformity and permit shifting active anti‑backsliding requirements to contingency measures for areas designated attainment for 2008 but nonattainment for 1997 ("orphan nonattainment") | Environmental Petitioners: elimination/relocation of these controls violates § 7502(e) unless formal redesignation criteria met | EPA: 2008 attainment makes 1997 controls unnecessary; existing measures suffice | Court: NSR and conformity are unambiguously "controls"; EPA cannot terminate or convert them absent § 7407(d)(3)(E) redesignation — vacated those Final Rule provisions |
| Whether EPA’s "redesignation substitute" (less than full § 7407(d)(3)(E) showings) is lawful | Environmental Petitioners: substitute lacks required statutory elements and unlawfully allows shedding controls | EPA: substitute reasonably adapts redesignation criteria for revoked NAAQS | Court: statute unambiguously requires all five § 7407(d)(3)(E) conditions; substitute invalid — vacated that provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.) (upholding EPA interpretation of certain RFP/15% issues under Chevron)
- South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.) (EPA may revoke old NAAQS only with adequate anti‑backsliding measures; NSR and certain controls are "controls")
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (EPA cannot terminate certain controls absent redesignation)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must ground decisions in statute; limits on EPA reasoning divorced from text)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (U.S.) (standard for evaluating EPA regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act)