North Carolina v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1250.,No. 05-1254.,No. 06-1232.,No. 05-1244.,No. 06-1227.,No. 06-1233.,No. 06-1242.,No. 05-1249.,No. 06-1228.,No. 06-1224.,No. 06-1226.,No. 06-1222.,No. 05-1253.,No. 06-1236.,No. 06-1243.,No. 05-1246.,No. 05-1256.,No. 06-1240.,No. 05-1262.,No. 05-1251.,No. 06-1245.,No. 05-1260.,No. 06-1235.,No. 05-1259.,No. 06-1229.,No. 07-1115.,No. 06-1237.,No. 06-1217.,No. 06-1238.,No. 06-1230.,No. 06-1241.,No. 05-1252.,05-1244.,05-1246.,05-1249.,05-1250.,05-1251.,05-1252.,05-1253.,05-1254.,05-1256.,05-1259.,05-1260.,05-1262.,06-1217.,06-1222.,06-1224.,06-1226.,06-1227.,06-1228.,06-1229.,06-1230.,06-1232.,06-1233.,06-1235.,06-1236.,06-1237.,06-1238.,06-1240.,06-1241.,06-1242.,06-1243.,06-1245.,07-1115. |
| Parties | State of NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
James C. Gulick, Marc D. Bernstein, John C. Evans, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney General's Office of State of North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.
Norman Louis Rave, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, John Charles Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, (DOJ) Environment & Natural Resources Division, Steven E. Silverman, Geoffrey L. Wilcox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Norman William Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, Hunton & Williams LLP, John Duval Walke, Esq., Natural Resources Defense Council, Sean H. Donahue, Law Office of Sean H. Donahue, Claudia Margaret O'Brien, Nathan Harold Seltzer, Latham & Watkins LLP, Peter S. Glaser, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Harold Patrick Quinn, Jr., National Mining Associaton, Washington, DC, C. Grady Moore, III, Philip Stephen Gidiere, III, Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, AL, Vickie Lynn Patton, Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, CO, for Intervenors.
Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, we considered petitions for review challenging various aspects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ("CAIR"). On July 11, 2008, we issued an opinion, in which we found "more than several fatal flaws in the rule." North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") adopted CAIR as an integral action, we vacated the rule in its entirety and remanded to EPA to promulgate a rule consistent with our opinion. Id. at 929-30.
On September 24, 2008, Respondent EPA filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On October 21, 2008, we issued an order on our own motion directing the parties to file a response to EPA's petition. (Order at 1, Oct. 21, 2008.) We also required the parties to "address (1) whether any party is seeking vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until Respondent [EPA] promulgates a revised rule." Id. Respondent EPA was given leave to "reply to the question whether a stay of the court's mandate in lieu of immediate vacatur would suffice." Id.
Having considered the parties' respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA's petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. This method of disposition is consistent with this court's precedent. See Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.Cir.2007) (). This court has further noted that it is appropriate to remand without vacatur in particular occasions where vacatur "would at least temporarily defeat . . . the enhanced protection of the environmental values covered by [the EPA rule at issue]." Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Adm'r of the United States EPA, 898 F.2d 183, 190 (D.C.Cir.1990). Here, we are convinced that, notwithstanding the relative flaws of CAIR, allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR. Accordingly, a remand without vacatur is appropriate in this case.
In addition, some of the Petitioners have suggested that this court impose a definitive deadline by which EPA must correct CAIR's flaws. Notwithstanding these requests, the court will refrain from doing so. Though we do not impose a particular schedule by which EPA must alter CAIR, we remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court's decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR's fundamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion. See Natural Res. Def. Council, 489 F.3d at 1264 (Randolph, J., concurring).
We therefore remand these cases to EPA without vacatur of CAIR so that EPA may remedy CAIR's flaws in accordance with our July 11, 2008 opinion in this case.
In deciding on rehearing to remand without vacating the final rule, the court has adhered to its traditional position where vacating would have serious adverse implications for public health and the environment. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1264 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see, e.g., Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Adm'r of the United States EPA, 898 F.2d 183, 190 (D.C.Cir.1990). When the court has ordered vacatur despite potential adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
...remanded CAIR without vacatur, leaving CAIR in place "until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion." North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (on rehearing). The Transport Rule is EPA's attempt to develop a rule that is consistent with our opinion in North C......
-
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...states from sources within the upwind states. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908 (D.C.Cir.2008); see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.Cir.2008) (en banc) (deciding to leave the Clean Air Interstate Rule in place until the EPA could promulgate additional regulations). Th......
-
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...states from sources within the upwind states. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908 (D.C.Cir.2008) ; see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.Cir.2008) (en banc) (deciding to leave the Clean Air Interstate Rule in place until the EPA could promulgate additional regulations). T......
-
Maryland v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...this rule, the key word is "will." In North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), modified on reh’g in part , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we held that the EPA reasonably construed "will"—which denotes the future tense—to limit the Good Neighbor Provision to downwind a......
-
Recent Developments In Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
...one hour for oral argument. 2 North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531 F. 3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing, 550 F. 3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 3 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 11, United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. v. EME Homer City Generation, L.......
-
EPA Finalizes Long-Awaited Transport Rule To Replace CAIR
...the D.C. Circuit invalidated in North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531 F. 3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing, 550 F. 3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) based on the court's finding that the program had "fatal flaws." More specifically, the D.C. Circuit ruled According to t......
-
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Review Decision To Vacate Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
...The Transport Rule originated in response to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 remand of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and created pollution controls based on air quality and cost. In a fact sheet published earlier this year, the EPA predicted......
-
EPA's Fine Particulate Air Pollution Control Program
...opportunity to allocate their emission budgets among in-state sources before the Agency’s authority 197. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 198. U.S. EPA, Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Corre......
-
(If) Things Fall Apart: Searching for Optimal Regulatory Solutions to Combating Climate Change Under Title I of the Existing CAA if Congressional Action Fails
...Id . at 901, 929. he vacatur was subsequently reversed and the court simply remanded the rule back to the EPA. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 39 ELR 20306 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Most recently, EPA proposed a replacement rule for CAIR called the Air Pollution Transport Rule, w......
-
ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED: TOWARD LIMITS AND EXPLANATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
...F.3d 896, 929 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (vacating interstate air pollution rule in its entirety under this test), amended on reh'g by 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (remanding to EPA without vacatur after concluding that rule was too fully entwined with the regulatory regim......
-
CHAPTER 2 JUSTICIABILITY: BARRIERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
...11; Indus. Resp. Br. at 19 (May 6, 2016). The D.C. Circuit remanded that rule without vacatur to EPA in 2008, see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and it took EPA more than two years to issue a replacement rule. EPA and supporting intervenors argued that this and......
-
IL Register Vol.34 issue 27. Issue 27 June 18, 2010
Pages 7989-8129
...JULY 2010 REGULATORY AGENDA Appeals had remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule to USEPA without vacating it. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (C.A.D.C. 2008). The Agency further stated that it expects to propose new regulations integrating non-EGUs into the CAIR rules and to withdra......
-
IL Register Vol.33 issue 26. Issue 26 June 26, 2009 Pages 8808-9207
...72 Fed. Reg. 58528 (October 16, 2007); f. North Carolina v. USEPA, 531 F.3d 896 (C.A.D.C. Cir. 2008); and g. North Carolina v. USEPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (C.A.D.C. Cir. 7) Will this rulemaking replace any emergency rulemaking currently in effect? No 8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic re......
-
IL Register Vol.34 issue 1. Issue 1 January 4, 2010
Pages 1-478
...stated that the U.S. Court of Appeals had remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule to USEPA without vacating it. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (C.A.D.C. 2008). The Agency further stated that, in light of that decision and the obligation to achieve interstate NOx reductions for indu......