Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. E.P.A., s. 92-1535
| Decision Date | 05 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 92-1535,92-1596,93-1004 and 92-1630,s. 92-1535 |
| Parties | , 306 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 62 USLW 2697, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,836 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, Respondents. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, Respondents, Alabama Power Company; Appalachian Power Company; Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Boston Edison Company; Carolina Power and Light Company; Centerior Energy Corporation; Cleveland Electric Illumination Company; Public Service Company of Oklahoma; Southwestern Electric Power Company; West Texas Utilities Company; Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; Central Illinois Light Company; Central Illinois Public Service Company; Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company; Columbus Southern Power Company; Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Commonwealth Edison Company; Consumers Power Company; Dayton Power and Light Company; Delmarva Power & Light Company; Detroit Edison Company; Duke Power Company; Duquesne Light Company; Florida Power & Light Company; Florida Power Corporation; Georgia Power Company; Gulf Power Company; Illinois Power Company; Indiana Michigan Power Company; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; Jacksonville Electric Authority; Kansas City Power & Light Company; Kentucky Power Company; Kentucky Utilities Company; Long Island Lighting Company; Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Madison Gas and Electric Company; Midwest Power Systems, Inc.; Minnesota Power Company; Mississippi Power Company; Monongahela Power Company; Montaup Electric Company; New England Power Company; New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company; Ohio Power Company; Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company; Pacificorp Electric Operations; Pennsylvania Power & Light Comp |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petitions for Review of Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
David M. Driesen argued the cause for petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council. On briefs were David G. Hawkins and Neil J. King.
William J. Hamel argued the cause for petitioners National Auto. Dealers Ass'n, et al. On briefs were Douglas I. Greenhaus and Dimitri G. Daskal. George T. Marcou entered an appearance.
Seth M. Barsky and Ronald M. Spritzer, Attorneys, U.S. Dept. of Justice, argued the cause for the respondents. On briefs were Lois J. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Martin F. McDermott, Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, and Jan Tierney, Sara Schneeberg and Michael Prosper, Counsel, U.S.E.P.A.
On briefs for intervenor Envirotest Systems Corp. was Roger J. Marzulla. Mark P. Fitzsimmons entered an appearance.
On brief for intervenors Alabama Power Co., et al. were Henry V. Nickel, Andrea Bear Field and Ross S. Antonson.
Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, WALD and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.
The petitioners seek review of decisions of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") implementing the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401 et seq. First, petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") challenges the EPA's policy of permitting conditional approval of committal state implementation plan ("SIP") submissions. In addition, all petitioners challenge substantive agency decisions in the EPA's final rule on vehicle inspection and maintenance programs ("I/M"); the NRDC challenges the rule's effective and implementation dates for enhanced I/M, its geographic scope for both basic and enhanced I/M, and several aspects of the performance standard adopted for I/M, while petitioners National Automobile Dealers Association, et al. ("NADA") challenge the EPA's use of notice and comment rulemaking to issue its I/M guidance and the rule's preference for centralized vehicle emission testing. We address the challenges separately. 1
First, the NRDC challenges the EPA's use of a "conditional approval" procedure, under section 110(k)(4) of the 1990 Amendments, Pub.L. No. 101-549, tit. I, Sec. 110(k)(4), 104 Stat. 2399, 2407 (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(k)(4)), to permit states to comply with statutory SIP deadlines by submitting "committal" SIPs that contain no specific remedial measures but merely promise to adopt such measures within a year. The NRDC contends this procedure is contrary to congressional intent and has impermissibly postponed the statutory deadlines for the affected SIP submittals. To remedy the delay caused by the EPA's conditional approval procedure, the NRDC asks that we require prompt submission and review of all overdue SIPs and immediate imposition of statutory sanctions on states that have not submitted adequate SIPs as of July 15, 1994. While we hold that the EPA misconstrued and misapplied section 110(k)(4), we nevertheless conclude that equity and practicality require that we approve the extensions in part and that we adopt more moderate remedial measures, as set out below.
Since it was amended in 1970, the CAA has required states to adopt, after reasonable notice and public hearings and approval by the EPA, SIPs designed to attain and maintain "national ambient air quality standards" ("NAAQS"). See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(2)(A) (added by Pub.L. No. 91-604, Sec. 4(a), 84 Stat. 1680 (1970)). Not until 1990, however, did Congress establish specific deadlines for submitting SIPs and SIP revisions. As amended in 1990, the CAA now requires states encompassing "nonattainment" areas 2 to submit particular SIPs or SIP revisions by fixed deadlines. Two of the deadlines are significant here: (1) November 15, 1990, the date on which the Amendments took effect and "immediately after" which date states were required thereunder to submit "basic" I/M submissions, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7511a(a)(2)(B)(i), (b)(4), and (2) November 15, 1992, the date by which states were required to submit SIPS addressing enhanced I/M, see id. Sec. 7511a(c)(3), and application of "reasonably available control technology" ("RACT") to stationary emission sources of nitrogen oxides ("NO subx "), see id. Sec. 7511a(b)(2), (f). 3
Under t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. of Va. v. E.P.A.
...measures within a year and ... a schedule of 'interim milestones' in the future adoption process." Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1133-34 (D.C.Cir.1994). State Plans must contain "something more than a mere promise to take appropriate but unidentified measures......
-
Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Com'n
...Union Eke. Co. v. EPA 427 U.S. 246, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976); Sierra Club v. EPA, 129 F.3d 137 (D.C.Cir.1997); NRDC v. EPA 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C.Cir. 1994); Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir.1990); Abramomtz v. U.S. EPA 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir.1987); NRDC v. EPA 475 F.2d 968 (D.C......
-
American Farm Bureau v. U.S. E.P.A.
...as "guidance documents" is not dispositive, see Appalachain Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1022 (D.C.Cir.2000); NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1132-33 (D.C.Cir. 1994), and the complaint clearly alleges that in practice EPA has treated these policies as final, binding rules. (Complaint at ¶¶ 7......
-
American Canoe Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...agency policy and from improperly interfering in the administrative decisionmaking process." Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 22 F.3d 1125, 1133 (D.C.Cir.1994). In determining ripeness, courts address both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision ......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...by one-half and resulted in only about a 3% loss of the potential emission reduction. 214 Biennial testing was upheld in Natu- 215. 22 F.3d 1125, 1143, 24 ELR 20836 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 216. Id. at 1144. 217. 141 Cong. Rec. H12459-01 (1995). 218. he enhanced I/M performance standard is found a......
-
Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies With Cleaner Alternatives
...Id. at 156. 45. Cf. Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 46. See e.g. , Natural Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Natural Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1983). ...