Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS and states to adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and anti‑backsliding controls for ozone nonattainment areas until redesignation criteria are met.
EPA approved Texas SIP revisions in 2020 terminating certain anti‑backsliding obligations and approving maintenance plans and (initially) a Section 185 fee program for the Houston and Dallas nonattainment areas.
Sierra Club and other environmental groups challenged those Houston and Dallas approvals, filing a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit (and a protective petition in the Fifth Circuit).
The D.C. Circuit considered whether venue properly lies in this court under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1): either because the action is nationally applicable or because EPA made and published a finding that the locally applicable action is ‘‘based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.’’
The court concluded the rules are locally/regional (they approve Texas SIP revisions that apply only to Houston and Dallas) and held that EPA’s decision whether to make and publish a nationwide‑scope finding is committed to agency discretion and therefore not judicially reviewable. The petition was transferred to the Fifth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the challenged rules are "nationally applicable" under § 7607(b)(1)	The rules reflect broad statutory interpretations (a new "redesignation substitute") and thus are nationally applicable	The rules on their face apply only to Houston and Dallas and are SIP approvals—therefore locally/regional	Held: Locally/regional; facial scope controls venue (rules apply only to HGB and DFW and revise Texas SIP).
Whether EPA’s failure to make and publish a finding of "nationwide scope or effect" is reviewable	EPA arbitrarily refused to publish such a finding and that refusal should be set aside, enabling venue in D.C. Circuit	EPA argues its choice to publish or not is discretionary and not subject to judicial review	Held: Unreviewable—decision to make/publish the finding is committed to agency discretion under § 701(a)(2) of the APA.
Proper remedy/venue for Sierra Club’s petition	D.C. Circuit is proper because EPA’s interpretation has national implications	Fifth Circuit is proper because actions are locally/regional and EPA did not publish a nationwide‑scope finding	Held: Venue lies exclusively in the Fifth Circuit; the petition is transferred there rather than dismissed.

S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (upholding EPA interpretation of anti‑backsliding application)
S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (invalidating an EPA redesignation‑substitute that allowed ending controls without statutory redesignation criteria)
Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (discussing facial vs. practical national applicability for venue)
Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (SIP approvals are prototypically locally or regionally applicable)
Texas v. U.S. EPA, 983 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding EPA’s decision whether to publish a nationwide‑scope finding is committed to agency discretion)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency determinations may be unreviewable when statute commits decision to agency discretion)
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) (strong presumption of judicial review but subject to § 701(a)(2) exceptions)
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (courts lack basis to assess certain agency discretionary decisions)