Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
850 F. Supp. 2d 300
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sierra Club filed suit against the EPA under the Clean Air Act citizen-suit provision and the APA, alleging failure to promulgate emission standards for brick and structural clay products by the 2000 deadline.
- The 1990 CAA amendments required EPA to identify hazards and set standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutants, including brick kilns and clay-product manufacturing.
- Section 112(e)(1) mandated promulgation of emission standards by November 15, 2000, which EPA had not completed by that date.
- EPA issued a 2003 final rule creating a category covering brick/structural clay and clay ceramics facilities, which the D.C. Circuit later vacated in 2007 and remanded to EPA.
- By 2008–2009 no new standards were promulgated, and the Sierra Club argued the remand did not extinguish the EPA’s non-discretionary duty to act by 2000.
- The district court determined jurisdiction existed to hear claims that EPA still has not promulgated required regulations, and denied the EPA’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sierra Club can sue to compel compliance with a non-discretionary duty. | Sierra Club asserts the non-discretionary duty remains unfulfilled. | EPA contends the duty was moot once regulations were issued (even if vacated), and no jurisdiction exists. | Yes; court finds jurisdiction to compel non-discretionary EPA action. |
| Whether the 2003 EPA rule mootled the non-discretionary duty. | Remand and vacatur do not discharge the duty to act by 2000. | Regulatory action in 2003 mooted the duty. | No; the duty remained unfulfilled and actionable. |
| Whether the suit is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401. | Six-year statute does not bar actions seeking to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. | Actions are time-barred if filed within six years of accrual. | Not time-barred; six-year bar does not apply to this continuing-nondiscretionary-duty claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (vacatur remands do not end a non-discretionary duty to act)
- Wilderness Society v. Norton, 434 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (continuing violations doctrine; not time-barred when challenging agency delay)
- Envtl. Def. v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2004) (vacatur requires new rulemaking to restore status quo)
- Indep. U.S. Tanker Owners Comm. v. Dole, 809 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (early authority on agency rulemaking obligations)
- Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Florida v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (continuing delay challenges to agency action under CAA framework)