United States Sugar Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
844 F.3d 268
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- EPA promulgated the Major Boilers Rule (NESHAP for major-source boilers) setting MACT standards for multiple boiler subcategories in 2011 and amended in 2013.
- Petitioners (including U.S. Sugar Corp. and industry and environmental intervenors) challenged aspects of the MACT-floor calculations, arguing EPA excluded certain best-performing sources when setting numeric standards.
- This Court (in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579) previously held EPA erred by excluding some sources in its MACT-floor analysis and vacated standards “affected” by that flaw.
- EPA sought panel rehearing limited to remedy, asking remand without vacatur to allow EPA to identify and revise affected standards via rulemaking; all parties supported remand without vacatur.
- The court recognized precedents where remand without vacatur is appropriate to avoid temporary harm to environmental protection and public health that vacatur would cause.
- The court remanded the numeric MACT standards for new and existing sources in all eighteen subcategories to EPA without vacatur and instructed EPA to identify and revise standards that would have differed if the excluded sources had been included.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA erred by excluding certain best-performing sources from MACT-floor calculations | EPA improperly excluded sources, rendering MACT floors and resulting standards invalid | EPA acknowledged error as to remedy and requested remand without vacatur to fix standards | Court accepted error earlier and remanded for correction; here resolved remedy by remanding without vacatur |
| Whether vacatur is appropriate as remedy | Petitioners (Environmental) sought vacatur of affected standards to nullify flawed limits | EPA and Industry urged remand without vacatur to preserve emission limits until corrected | Court held remand without vacatur appropriate to avoid adverse environmental/public-health consequences |
| Proper scope of remand | Environmental petitioners sought broad relief removing affected standards | EPA asked to identify which specific standards were affected and revise them by rulemaking | Court directed EPA to identify standards where MACT floor would differ if all best performers included and to revise those standards per the prior opinion |
| Whether court should impose a deadline for EPA action | Industry urged prompt action but did not request a deadline | EPA did not request a court-imposed deadline; parties preferred agency rulemaking discretion | Court declined to set a deadline but urged prompt action and noted mandamus remains available if EPA unreasonably delays |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (court opinion finding EPA erred in MACT-floor calculation)
- In re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discussing risks of remand without vacatur and delay)
- North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding without vacatur when vacatur would harm environmental protection)
- Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 898 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (vacatur avoided where it would temporarily defeat environmental protection)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court traditionally refrains from vacating deficient rules with serious public-health/environmental consequences)