WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson
870 F. Supp. 2d 847
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Midwest Environmental Defense, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians sue EPA Administrator under the Clean Air Act citizen suit provision to compel PSD review and regulation for ozone.
- EPA moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing Section 166(a) creates discretionary, not mandatory, duties to promulgate PSD regulations after revised NAAQS.
- The central issue is whether the March 27, 2008 ozone NAAQS revision triggers a non-discretionary duty to promulgate new PSD rules for ozone.
- Court analyzes statutory text and overall Act to decide if Section 166(a) imposes continuing duties after initial promulgations.
- Court concludes Section 166(a) does not impose a mandatory duty to promulgate revised PSD regulations for ozone and grants the motion to dismiss the related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 166(a) mandate PSD updates after revised NAAQS? | Plaintiffs argue the second sentence creates a continuing duty. | EPA asserts the second sentence applies only to new pollutants or new NAAQS, not revisions to existing ones. | No mandatory duty; jurisdictional claims dismissed. |
| Should statute be read in isolation or in context of the Act as a whole? | Plain reading supports ongoing PSD obligation for ozone revisions. | Context shows no continuing duty; revisions differ from original promulgations. | Context supports no continuing duty; Section 166(a) not ambiguous in context. |
| Is Congress’s treatment of promulgation vs revision in other provisions persuasive? | Differences should imply ongoing PSD duty upon revisions. | Other provisions distinguish promulgation and revision; Section 166(a) does not mention revisions. | Distinctions in other provisions show no implied revision duty for Section 166(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (context of prompt attainment and mandatory deadlines under CAA)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Admin’r, U.S. EPA, 898 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (PSD regulation framework and use of increments discussed)
- Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (contextual reading of statutory scheme in statutory interpretation)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assocs., Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (statutory interpretation and absence of cost-benefit in NAAQS setting)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory interpretation principles)