Sierra Club v. Andrew Wheeler, 956 F.3d 612

The Clean Air Act (CAA) §129 requires EPA to issue emission guidelines for categories of solid waste incinerators (CISWI and OSWI) and to set performance standards for new and existing units.
Under §129(b): States must submit implementation plans within 1 year of guideline promulgation; EPA must approve/disapprove within 180 days; compliance deadlines for units are tied to plan approval and a 5‑year outer limit from promulgation.
§129(b)(3) directs the Administrator to "develop, implement and enforce" a federal plan for any State that "has not submitted an approvable plan under this subsection with respect to units in such category within two years after the date on which the Administrator promulgated the relevant guidelines" and to ensure compliance "not later than five years" after promulgation.
EPA issued CISWI guidelines in 2013 and OSWI guidelines in 2005; many States failed to submit approvable plans and EPA has not imposed federal plans.
Sierra Club sued under the CAA citizen‑suit provision §304(a)(2) to compel EPA to promulgate federal plans; the district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, holding §129(b)(3) does not create a nondiscretionary, date‑certain duty and thus falls outside the CAA's limited waiver of sovereign immunity.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting Sierra Club’s alternative reliance on the APA’s sovereign‑immunity waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §129(b)(3) imposes a nondiscretionary, date‑certain duty on EPA to develop, implement and enforce a federal plan within two years after guideline promulgation	Sierra Club: the text imposes a two‑year mandatory deadline on EPA to act	EPA: the two‑year phrase modifies only the State’s failure to submit an approvable plan; EPA has no fixed statutory deadline to promulgate a federal plan	Held: No. The court applied the rule of last antecedent and statutory context to conclude §129(b)(3) does not create a nondiscretionary, date‑certain duty on EPA; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether the APA waives sovereign immunity to permit Sierra Club’s claim despite CAA limitations	Sierra Club: APA §702 waives sovereign immunity for non‑monetary relief and hence supplies jurisdiction	EPA: APA’s waiver is subject to other statutes’ limitations; where CAA addresses the remedy, APA cannot be used to circumvent CAA’s restrictions	Held: No. The court held the APA waiver cannot be used to evade CAA’s statutory limits, relying on Patchak and related precedent; APA does not supply jurisdiction

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional)
Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (definition of nondiscretionary duty/date‑certain deadline under CAA)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional‑threshold principles)
Match‑E‑Be‑Nash‑She‑Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (APA waiver cannot override statute that addresses the same remedy)
Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (interpret statutes in context of overall statutory scheme)
Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (rule of last antecedent in statutory construction)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (principles on modifying clauses and statutory construction)
Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544 (standard for unreasonable‑delay claims)