Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | 78-1239,P,78-1401,78-1331,Nos. 78-1002,78-1525,BY-PRODUCTS,s. 78-1002 |
| Citation | 600 F.2d 844,195 U.S.App.D.C. 30 |
| Parties | , 195 U.S.App.D.C. 30, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,194 CITIZENS TO SAVE SPENCER COUNTY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Respondents, Alabama Power Company et al., American Petroleum Institute, et al., Sierra Club, et al., BF Goodrich Company, American Paper Institute, et al., Hoosier Energy Division, Mountain Fuel Supply Company, Montana Power Co., et al., Natural Resources Council of Maine, Pittston Co., Intervenors. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Appellant, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Montana Power Co. et al., Intervenors. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Natural Resources Council of Maine, Appellants. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. The BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. HAMPTON ROADS ENERGY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. The MONTANA POWER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Pittston Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., Intervenors. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. The PITTSTON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Robert J. Rauch, Washington, D. C., for petitioners/appellants Environmental Defense Fund, et al., in Nos. 78-1239, 78-1401 and intervenors 78-1002.
Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D. C., with whom Philip G. Sunderland, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners/appellants, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, et al., in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1239, 78-1331, 78-1401, 78-1604 and 78-1626. Mr. Terris also argued for intervenor, Northern Cheyenne Tribe.
Francis M. Shea, Washington, D. C., with whom Richard T. Conway, James R. Bieke and William R. Galeota, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners, Montana Power Company, et al., in No. 78-1610 intervenors in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1331 and appellees in No. 78-1239.
Michael F. McBride, Washington, D. C., with whom Eugene B. Thomas, Jr. and Margaret R. A. Paradis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioners Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. in No. 78-1703 and appellee in No. 78-1239.
Albert J. Beveridge, III and Carl Eardley, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners the B. F. Goodrich Co., in No. 87-1557, intervenor in No. 78-1002 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.
J. Michael Hines, John D. Field, III and John R. Feore, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner, Hampton Roads Energy Co. in No. 78-1590 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1002.
Donald W. Markham and Jonathan B. Hill, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioner, The Pittston Co. in No. 78-1810, appellees in No. 78-1239 and intervenor in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1626.
Michael K. Glenn, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners, American Paper Institute, et al., in No. 78-1815, amicus curiae in No. 78-1239 and intervenor in No. 78-1002.
Theodore L. Garrett, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners, Manufacturing Chemists Ass'n, et al., in No. 78-1819 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1002.
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., was on the brief, for petitioners, Alabama By-Products Corp. in No. 78-1626.
William D. Kramer, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners Koppers Corporation and USM Corp. in No. 78-1838 and No. 78-1839.
Angus MacBeth, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Erica L. Dolgin, Atty., Dept. of Justice and Joan Z. Bernstein, Gen. Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondents.
George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., with whom Henry V. Nickel and Michael B. Barr, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Alabama Power Co., et al., in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1239.
John J. Adams and David F. Peter, Richmond, Va., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1239.
Jon T. Brown and J. Cathy Lichtenberg, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Hoosier Energy Division in No. 78-1002 and No. 78-1239.
George J. Meiburger, James M. Broadstone and John F. Harrington, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Mountain Fuel Supply Co. in No. 78-1002 and No. 78-1239.
Charles F. Lettow and Henry J. Plog, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee PPG Industries, in No. 78-1239.
Fred F. Fielding, Thomas C. Watson and James Skelly Wright, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee The Sierra Pacific Power Co. in No. 78-1239.
William A. Mogel, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for intervenor Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1401, 78-1525, 78-1557, 78-1604, 78-1610, 78-1626 and 78-1703 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.
William E. Murane, Robert T. Connery, Paul D. Phillips, Denver, Colo., and William R. Duff, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor Colorado Interstate Gas Co. in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1401, 78-1525, 78-1557, 78-1604, 78-1610, 78-1626, 78-1703 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.
J. Eugene Marans, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for amicus curiae, Texas Industries, Inc. in No. 78-1002.
Also Michael C. Kendall, Jasper, Ind., entered an appearance for petitioners in No. 78-1002.
Also James W. Moorman, Earl Salo, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for respondents.
Also James H. Cohen, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for intervenor, Sierra Club in Nos. 78-1810, 78-1815, 78-1819, 78-1826, 78-1838 and 78-1839.
Also R. G. Groussman and J. F. Bates, Salt Lake City, Utah, entered appearances, for amicus curiae, Mountain Fuel Supply Co. in No. 78-1239.
OUTLINE OF THE OPINION
Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA
Page
Introduction ............................................................. 850
I. BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT LITIGATION ............................... 851
A. Statutory Inconsistency ......................................... 851
B. Administrative Interpretation and Action ........................ 854
C. Litigation ...................................................... 857
D. Continuing Administrative Action ................................ 857
II. THE FRUITLESS SEARCH FOR A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF
Sections 165 AND 168 ............................................... 860
A. Relative Weight to be Afforded the Two Sections: The
"Plain Language" Argument ...................................... 861
B. Other Sections of the Act Cited in Support of "Plain
Language" Contentions .......................................... 864
C. Legislative History of Sections 165 and 168 ..................... 866
D. The Overall Scheme of the Clean Air Act and the
Amendments of 1977 ............................................. 868
E. Applicable Rules of Statutory Construction ...................... 870
III. THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR
PROMULGATION OF EPA'S "HARMONIZATION"
REGULATIONS ........................................................ 873
A. The Source of Authority for EPA'S Rulemaking .................... 873
B. The Appropriate Form of Rulemaking for EPA to Pursue
in Harmonizing the Conflicting Standards ....................... 874
1. EPA's Final Rule Incorporating Into Its
Regulations the Immediately Effective PSD
Requirements Identified in Section
168(b): The "First"Rule .................................... 875
2. EPA's Rules Providing PSD Guidance to States and
Implementing the Requirements of Section 165
The
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia Coal Ass'n v. Reilly
...rules merely "remind affected parties of existing duties." Id. at 469, quoting Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 876 n. 153 (D.C.Cir.1979). While at first blush EPA's written policy on in-stream treatment may appear to impose new......
-
Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r
...443 (9th Cir. 1993) ; see also Schiller v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd. , 449 F.3d 286, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) ; Citizens to Save Spencer Cnty. v. U.S. EPA , 600 F.2d 844, 884 (D.C. Cir. 1979). If a statement is truly concise, then "[a] careful reading of the agency's published notices, from its or......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus
...Chamber of Commerce v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 636 F.2d 464, 468 (D.C.Cir.1980); Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 879 n. 171 (D.C.Cir.1979). An interpretative rule simply states what the administrative agency thinks the statute means, and only " '......
-
Scarborough v. Office of Personnel Management
...disability retirement appeals is analogous to the issue considered by the District of Columbia Circuit in Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844 (D.C.Cir.1979), and Atwell v. MSPB, 670 F.2d 272 (D.C.Cir.1981). In those cases, the court concluded that, "on review of an agency's......
-
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
...in three parts, each written by a diferent 14. 448 F. Supp. 89, 11 ELR 20329 (D.D.C. 1978). 15. 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1), CAA §307(b)(1). 16. 600 F.2d 844, 9 ELR 20194 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 17. 606 F.2d 1068, 9 ELR 20400 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 18. 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). member of ......
-
DUE DEFERENCE: KISOR, STINSON, AND THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
...law or policy." (first citing Cabais v. Egger, 690 F.2d 234, 238 (D.C. Cir. 1982); then citing Citizens to Save Spencer Cnty. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 876 n.153 (D.C. Cir. 1979); then quoting Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. OSHA, 636 F.2d 464, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1980); and then quoting Powderly v. ......
-
Historical Perspectives on §111(d) of the Clean Air Act
...in which both provisions could be read together). 105. Scialabba , 134 S. Ct. at 2220. See also Citizens to Save Spencer Cnty. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 9 ELR 20194 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (holding that in the face of a drafting error creating an irreconcilable conlict, a creative EPA interpretation w......