61 F. Supp. 3d 35
D.D.C.2014Background
- Sierra Club filed seven citizen suits against EPA under Clean Air Act §112; cases consolidated and stayed for mediation.
- EPA conceded it failed to promulgate certain emission standards by the November 15, 2000 deadline for §§112(c)(3), (k)(3)(b), and (c)(6).
- §112(c)(6) requires standards for sources accounting for ≥90% of emissions of seven HAPs; enforcement sought for three pollutants (HCB, PCB, POM).
- March 31, 2006 Order required EPA to promulgate standards assuring 90% coverage by a date certain.
- January 20, 2011 Order extended the deadline but did not resolve EPA’s obligations.
- EPA issued a Determination (Mar. 21, 2011) arguing it fulfilled §112(c)(6); the determination was later vacated by the D.C. Circuit for lack of notice and comment, remanding for proper rulemaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court can enforce nondiscretionary duties under §112(c)(6). | Sierra Club argues district court may compel EPA to act per the mandate. | EPA contends substantive review lies with the court of appeals; district court lacks jurisdiction to dictate substance. | District court has authority to enforce the mandate and compel action. |
| Whether EPA’s Determination satisfied §112(c)(6) after the Circuit vacated it for procedural defects. | Determination was vacated; EPA must follow notice-and-comment procedures. | EPA argues its rules indirectly satisfy §112(c)(6); the Determination was not required to be reviewed here. | Determination invalid; requires notice-and-comment rulemaking upon reissuance or modification. |
| What relief is appropriate to enforce the mandate given ongoing procedural defect. | EPA must initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking with a responsive final action. | Relief should respect EPA’s discretion within statutory framework; not a preferred schedule. | EPA must start notice-and-comment rulemaking and respond to comments; schedule to be set by the court. |
| Scope of required action (which pollutants and what standards) under the enforceable mandate. | Three pollutants remain without properly established standards for 90% emission coverage. | EPA has satisfied obligations through broader regulatory actions and existing rules. | Remedial process focused on proper notice-and-comment for the Determination or its replacement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 699 F.3d 530 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Determination as legislative rulemaking requiring notice and comment; vacated for not following procedures)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (Foundation for 2006 deadline order and scope of §112(c)(6) duties)
- Int'l Ladies’ Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan, 733 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (authority to enforce agency action on nondiscretionary duties)
- Envt’l Def. v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2004) (jurisdictional framework dividing agency action review between district and appellate courts)
- Louisiana Federal Land Bank Ass’n v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency must respond to meaningful comments in rulemaking)