213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 98-1497, St. of Michigan v. United States Envt'l Protection Agency

Docket Nº98-1497, 98-1499, 98-1500, 98-1501, 98-1502, 98-1504, 98-1518,98-1556, 98-1567, 98-1573, 98-1585, 98-1588, 98-1590,98-1596, 98-1598, 98-1601, 98-1602, 98-1608, 98-1609,98-1611, 98-1615, 98-1616, 98-1617, 98-1618, 98-1619,98-1621, 99-1070, 99-1093
Citation213 F.3d 663
Party NameState of Michigan, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and State of West Virginia, Division of Environmental Protection, Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent New England Council, Inc., et al., Intervenors
Case DateMarch 03, 2000
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Page 663

213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and State of West Virginia, Division of Environmental Protection, Petitioners

v.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent

New England Council, Inc., et al., Intervenors

Nos. 98-1497, 98-1499, 98-1500, 98-1501, 98-1502, 98-1504, 98-1518,98-1556, 98-1567, 98-1573, 98-1585, 98-1588, 98-1590,98-1596, 98-1598, 98-1601, 98-1602, 98-1608, 98-1609,98-1611, 98-1615, 98-1616, 98-1617, 98-1618, 98-1619,98-1621, 99-1070, 99-1093

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

March 3, 2000

Argued November 9, 1999

Page 664

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 665

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 666

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 667

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency

Susan E. Ashbrook, Assistant Attorney General, State of Ohio, James C. Gulick, Special Deputy Attorney, State of North Carolina, Andrea B. Field, Theodore L. Garrett, Todd Palmer, Jonathan S. Martel, William F. Pedersen and Scott H. Segal argued the causes for petitioners. With them on the briefs were Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, State of Ohio, Andrew S. Bergman, Assistant Attorney General, Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, State of North Carolina, J. Allen

Page 668

Jernigan, Special Deputy Attorney General, James P. Longest, Jr., and Amy R. Gillespie, Assistant Attorneys General, Bill Pryor, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Tommy E. Bryan, Assitant Attorney General, Jeffrey Modisett, Attorney General, State of Indiana, Daniel B. Dovenbarger, Chief Counsel, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, State of Michigan, Thomas Casey, Solicitor General, Alan F. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Mark E. Earley, Attorney General, State of Virginia, Roger L. Chaffe, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stewart T. Leeth, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Zerbe, Senior Counsel, State of West Virginia, Samuel L. Finklea, III, Grant Crandall, Eugene M. Trisko, Norman W. Fichthorn, Mel S. Schulze, David M. Flannery, Kathy Beckett, Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Michael D. Hockley, J. Lister Hubbard, R. Brooke Lawson, III, Robert E. Lannan, II, Terry J. Satterlee, Alok Ahuja, Mark E. Shere, Bryan G. Tabler, Jeffrey L. Landsman, Jennifer S. McGinnity, Howard E. Shapiro, Margaret Claiborne Campbell, Thomas E. Knauer, David R. Straus, Deborah E. Jennings, Julie R. Domike, Patricia T. Barmeyer, Lisa G. Dowden, Brian J. Renaud, Rhonda L. Ross, Jeffrey F. Cherry, Katherine L. Rhyne, John M. Koeppl, Henry J. Handzel, Jeffrey A. Knight, Joan Dreskin, Kevin B. Belford, Pamela A. Lacey, Gene E. Godley, Michael H. Levin and Edmund B. Frost. Earle D. Getchell, Jr., Neal J. Cabral, Christopher D. Man, Jacqueline H. Fine, Jon S. Faletto and John P. Proctor entered appearances.

James E. Doyle, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, and Philip Peterson and Thomas L. Dosch, Assistant Attorneys General, were on the brief for intervenor State of Wisconsin.

Louis E. Tosi and William L. Patberg were on the brief for amicus curiae Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments.

Charles S. Carter and Deborah Ann Hottel were on the brief of amici curiae South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Management Association of South Carolina, South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance, and South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation.

Jon M. Lipshultz and Patricia R. McCubbin, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent. With them on the brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and Jan Tierney, Howard Hoffman, Amey W. Marrella and Dwight C. Alpern, Attorneys, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, argued the cause for state intervenors. With him on the brief were Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Attorney General, Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, State of Massachusetts, William L. Pardee, Assistant Attorney General, M. Dukes Pepper, Jr., Assistant Counsel, State of Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse, Attorney General, State of Rhode Island, Michael Rubin, Environmental Advocate, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, State of Vermont, Ronald A. Shems, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Wurzbacher, Assistant Attorney General, State of Maryland, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Richard F. Webb, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, State of Maine, Paul Stern, Deputy Attorney General, Philip McLaughlin, Attorney General, State of New Hampshire, and Maureen D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Kathleen L. Millian argued the cause for intervenor Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Province of Ontario, Canada). With her on the brief was Bruce J. Terris.

David Hawkins and Raissa Griffin were on the brief for intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. Andrew P. Caputo entered an appearance.

Page 669

Patrick M. Raher, John G. Roberts, Jr., Catherine E. Stetson, Michael R. Barr, Michael A. Conley, Theresa Fenelon Falk, John H. Sharp, Paul G. Wallach and Kenneth R. Meade were on the brief for industry intervenors.

Richard A. Wegman was on the brief for intervenor the Government of Canada.

Before: Williams, Sentelle and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Per Curiam.[*].

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.

Introduction

Under the Clean Air Act the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for air pollutants, and states must then adopt state implementation plans ("SIPs") providing for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS;such plans are then submitted to EPA for approval. See Clean Air Act ("CAA") S 110(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. S 7410(a)(1) (1994). Even after a SIP is approved, EPA may at a later time call for SIP revisions if the Administrator finds a SIP inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to meet the dictates of pollutant transport commissions, or "to otherwise comply with any requirement of this chapter." CAA S 110(k)(5), 42 U.S.C. S 7410(k)(5).

In October 1998 EPA issued a final rule mandating that 22 states and the District of Columbia revise their SIPs to mitigate the interstate transport of ozone.1 See Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone ("Final Rule"), 63 Fed. Reg. 57,356 (1998). The statutory hook for EPA's action was a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act which requires that SIPs contain "adequate provisions" prohibiting

any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will ... contribute significantly to non attainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary am-bient air quality standard.

CAA S 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 42 U.S.C. S 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (1994). EPA uniformly required that each state reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx--an ozone precursor) by the amount accomplishable by what EPA dubbed "highly cost-effective controls," namely, those controls EPA found capable of removing NOX at a cost of $2000 or less per ton. Numerous petitions for review challenge various aspects of EPA's decision.

In Part I we reject the following claims: that EPA could not call for the SIP revisions without convening a transport commission; that EPA failed to undertake a sufficiently state-specific determination of ozone contribution; that EPA unlawfully overrode past precedent regarding "significant" contribution; that EPA's consideration of the cost of NOx reduction violated the statute; that EPA's scheme of uniform controls is arbitrary and capricious; that CAA S 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as construed by EPA violates the nondelegation doctrine.

In Part II we hold that the record does not support including Wisconsin in the SIP call, nor does it support creating NOx budgets based on the entire emissions of Missouri or Georgia. We reject the claim that

Page 670

South Carolina was improperly included in the SIP call.

In Part III we reject the claim that EPA impermissibly intruded on the statutory rights of states to fashion their SIPs. We also reject the claim that EPA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In Part IV we reject the claim that EPA arbitrarily revised the definition of a "NOx budget unit." We reject all of the claims raised by the Council of Industrial Boilers save one: we hold that EPA failed to provide adequate notice of a change in the definition of an electric generating unit. We also hold that EPA did not provide adequate notice of a change in the control level assumed for large, stationary internal combustion engines, but we reject the claim that EPA failed to follow its own standards in defining such engines. Finally, we uphold EPA's limits on early reduction credits, and EPA's use of a 15% multiplier for calculating emissions from low mass emission units.

We note at the outset that one challenge has been stayed. In 1979, EPA set the acceptable level for ozone in the ambient air at 0.12 parts per million ("ppm"), averaged over intervals of one hour. This standard is commonly known as the "1-hour standard." By 1997, EPA had concluded that the 1-hour standard no longer adequately protected public health. See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 62 Fed. Reg. 38,856 (1997). Pursuant to the agency's statutory mandate to review and revise NAAQS as appropriate, 42 U.S.C. S 7409(d)(1), EPA promulgated a new, more stringent "8-hour standard" which limits ozone levels to 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 Fed. Reg. 38,856 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 50.10).

EPA has undertaken the phasing out of the 1-hour standard on an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
214 practice notes
11 firm's commentaries
  • Court of Appeals Ruling Upholding EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 26, 2012
    ...and that EPA was not arbitrary and capricious by not considering stationary-source costs in its analyses. See, e.g., Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Mid-Tex Elec. Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 341–42 (D.C. Cir. 1985). EPA’s economic impact assessment conducted purs......
  • Homer City – Has the D.C. Circuit Signaled an Alternate Approach to Judicial Review of Agency Regulations?
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • October 11, 2012
    ...this point” at oral argument. Id. at *10, n. 12. 13 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added). 14 Id. at *9 (referencing Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). 15 See, e.g., New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008......
  • The Biden Administration’s Approach to the Social Cost of Carbon
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • March 24, 2021
    ...v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i). 4 Michigan v. E.P.A., 213 F.3d 663, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2000). WilmerHale | The Biden Administration’s Approach to the Social Cost of Carbon 4 – Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns (2001)......
  • D.C. Circuit Calls Strike Two on EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 27, 2012
    ...on a 7 See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 8 Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 9 See Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (Sentelle, J., dissenting); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 10 Finding of Si......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • "One man's ceilin' is another man's floor": property rights as the double-edged sword.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 31 Nbr. 4, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...Air Enforcement Initiative, Nov. 16, 2000, at http://www.usdoi.gov/opa/pr/2000/November/662enrd.htm. (49) See generally Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 672-73 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (describing a lawsuit filed by states protesting EPA final rule mandating reduction of state N[O.sub.x] emissions), ......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 Nbr. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...adopt state implementation plans providing for the attainment of the NAAQS."); see also 42 U.S.C. [section] 7407(a); Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (stating "states have the primary responsibility to attain and maintain NAAQS within their borders"). The f......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 Nbr. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...adopt state implementation plans providing for the attainment of the NAAQS."); see also 42 U.S.C. [section] 7407(a); Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (stating "states have the primary responsibility to attain and maintain NAAQS within their borders"). The f......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 Nbr. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...adopt state implementation plans providing for the attainment of the NAAQS."); see also 42 U.S.C. [section] 7407(a); Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (stating "states have the primary responsibility to attain and maintain NAAQS within their borders"). The f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT