Sierra Club v. Wheeler, 330 F. Supp. 3d 407

Background

Sierra Club sued EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA) citizen-suit provision, alleging EPA failed to perform three nondiscretionary duties under 42 U.S.C. § 7429: (1) develop, implement, and enforce a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the 2013 CISWI standards; (2) develop, implement, and enforce a FIP for the 2005 OSWI standards; and (3) review and revise the 2005 OSWI standards every five years.
EPA had promulgated CISWI standards in 2013 and OSWI standards in 2005; many states did not submit approvable state implementation plans (SIPs) or negative declarations, and EPA has not finalized corresponding federal plans.
Both parties agreed EPA failed to perform the five-year review/revise duty for the 2005 OSWI standards; they disputed whether § 7429(b)(3) imposes a nondiscretionary two-year deadline to create FIPs.
Sierra Club moved for summary judgment seeking court-ordered deadlines; EPA cross-moved, arguing (a) § 7429(b)(3) does not impose a date-certain duty to develop FIPs (so no waiver of sovereign immunity), and (b) resource constraints justify later deadlines.
The Court held the two FIP duties are not nondiscretionary (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) but found the five-year review/revise duty for the 2005 OSWI standards is nondiscretionary and set an equitable compliance schedule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 7429(b)(3) imposes a nondiscretionary, date-certain two-year duty to develop FIPs	§ 7429(b)(3) requires EPA to "develop, implement and enforce" a FIP "within 2 years" of promulgating guidelines, creating a clear nondiscretionary deadline	The two-year phrase modifies which states must be covered (those that fail to submit approvable plans within two years); it does not set a date-certain deadline to develop the FIP	Held for EPA: statute does not create a clear-cut two-year deadline; FIP claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether prior EPA statements or regulations compel a different statutory reading or merit deference	EPA previously characterized § 7429(b)(3) as imposing a two-year FIP backstop in rulemakings; that supports plaintiff's reading	EPA did not advance a Chevron claim; its prior passing statements lack force-of-law and are not Chevron-worthy here	Held for EPA: prior Federal Register passages are not self-binding or Chevron-worthy; traditional statutory tools resolve the issue
Whether the five-year review/revise duty for 2005 OSWI standards is nondiscretionary and subject to judicially imposed deadlines	The five-year review/revise mandate is a date-certain nondiscretionary duty and EPA has violated it; court should set prompt deadlines	EPA concedes nondiscretionary duty but requests later start and longer timeline due to resource and other court-ordered obligations	Held for plaintiff on liability; court set a schedule: begin rulemaking Mar. 1, 2019; propose by Aug. 31, 2020; final rule by May 31, 2021
Whether APA or other jurisdictional bases supply jurisdiction for dismissed FIP claims	Sierra Club suggested APA waiver might allow suit despite CAA interpretation	EPA and Court: APA waiver does not override specific limits; CAA's citizen-suit waiver is the relevant consent and is narrow	Held for EPA: APA does not create jurisdiction where CAA citizen-suit waiver does not; FIP claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (nondiscretionary-duty requires a clear-cut, date-certain mandate)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations)
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (statutory interpretation begins with text; last-antecedent rule discussed)
Train v. NRDC, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (equitable power to set enforceable agency deadlines; courts must consider impossibility and agency capacity)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)