983 F.3d 826
5th Cir.2020Background
- EPA revised the 2015 ozone NAAQS to 0.07 ppm and required state initial area designations under the Clean Air Act.
- Texas initially recommended Bexar County as nonattainment (2013–2015 design value 0.078 ppm), later asked EPA to treat Bexar as attainment based on modeling projecting attainment by 2020.
- In July 2018 EPA designated Bexar County as marginal nonattainment based on certified 2015–2017 monitor data and designated seven neighboring counties (including Atascosa, Comal, Guadalupe) as attainment/unclassifiable after a five-factor contribution analysis.
- Texas petitioned for review (venue dispute followed; D.C. Circuit transferred consolidated challenges to the Fifth Circuit; Sierra Club opposed venue and also petitioned).
- Sierra Club argued three neighboring counties should be nonattainment because each allegedly contributed >1% to Bexar’s ozone; Texas argued EPA lacked authority to override the State’s projected-attainment designation.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed (Chevron/APA standards) and denied both petitions, upholding EPA’s discretionary authority and the agency’s five-factor contribution determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue for judicial review | Sierra Club: action is part of nationally applicable regulation so venue lies in D.C. Circuit | EPA/Texas: designations are locally/regionally applicable and EPA did not publish a nationwide-scope finding, so venue is the Fifth Circuit | Venue is proper in the Fifth Circuit because the action is locally/regional and EPA made no published nationwide-scope finding |
| EPA authority to modify state initial designations (meaning of "necessary") | Texas: "necessary" means unavoidable/compulsory; EPA may change only when modification is essential | EPA: statute says Administrator may make modifications "as the Administrator deems necessary," which grants discretionary authority | Court adopts EPA’s reading: Congress delegated discretion; EPA permissibly may modify initial designations when it "deems necessary" |
| Whether EPA was required to consider state modeling/future attainment (Dictionary Act argument) | Texas: Dictionary Act implies present-tense language includes future; EPA had to consider projections showing attainment by 2020 | EPA: statute and NAAQS scheme focus on current monitored compliance; marginal nonattainment areas have statutory time to attain, so present noncompliance controls | Court held EPA was not required to accept or base designations on future modeling; EPA permissibly relied on current certified monitoring data |
| Sierra Club’s challenge to attainment designations for three counties (one‑percent threshold; adequacy of explanation) | Sierra Club: EPA previously treated >1% impacts as significant and thus must follow a one‑percent threshold; EPA changed position without reasoned explanation | EPA: no statutory numeric threshold for contribution; EPA uses a multi-factor five‑factor contribution test and adequately explained its analysis for each county | Court held EPA did not arbitrarily depart from past practice and provided a reasoned five‑factor analysis; designation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes reviewed under Chevron)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
- Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016) (interpretation of Clean Air Act venue and related precedent)
- Mississippi Comm’n on Env’t Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussion of designation authority and multi-factor contribution analysis)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (scope of courts’ authority to compel agency action)
- EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014) (agency discretion and interstate transport/Good Neighbor discussion)