Okla. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
Decision Date | 25 April 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 11–1307.,11–1307. |
Citation | 740 F.3d 185 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Petitioner v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent Navajo Nation, et al., Intervenors. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Limitation Recognized
40 C.F.R. §§ 49.151, 49.152, 49.153, 49.154, 49.155, 49.156, 49.157, 49.158, 49.159, 49.160, 49.161
On Petition for Review of a Final Rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Lynn H. Slade argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were William C. Scott and Deana M. Bennett.
John R. Jacus, Charles A. Breer, and Radcliffe Dann, IV were on the brief for amicus curiae Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association in support of petitioner.
David A. Carson, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jon M. Lipshultz, Attorney.
Philip Baker–Shenk, Kurt E. Blase, Richard A. Duncan, and Jill Elise Grant were on the brief for Tribal Intervenors in support of respondent.
Beverly M. Conerton, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Minnesota was on the brief for amicus curiae State of Minnesota in support of respondent.
Michael C. Small and James E. Tysse were on the brief for amicus curiae The Osage Nation in support of respondent.
Before: HENDERSON and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality petitions for review of a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency establishing a federal implementation plan for the attainment of national air quality standards in “Indian country.” SeeReview of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, 76 Fed.Reg. 38,748 (2011) ( )(hereinafter Indian Country NSR Rule). Jurisdiction to implement the Clean Air Act lies initially in either a state or an Indian tribe. The EPA may in certain circumstances implement a federal program in Indian country, see42 U.S.C. § 7601(d), but when it does so, in our view, it is subject to the same jurisdictional limitations as the tribe in whose shoes it stands. Because the EPA requires a tribe to show it has jurisdiction before regulating Indian country outside a reservation, yet made no demonstration of tribal jurisdiction before itself regulating those areas, we hold the agency was without authority to displace Oklahoma's state implementation plan in non-reservation Indian country. We therefore grant the petition for review and vacate the Indian Country NSR Rule with respect to non-reservation lands.
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) places upon each state “the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State.” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a).1 In order to carry out that responsibility, each state must submit for EPA approval a state implementation plan (SIP) for the attainment of national air quality standards, § 7410(a)(1), and each SIP must contain a permitting or so-called “new source review” (NSR) program. See § 7410(a)(2)(C) ( ). The EPA first approved Oklahoma's SIP in 1972, see Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 37 Fed.Reg. 10,842, 10,888/1, and in modified form that SIP remains in effect today, see40 C.F.R. § 52.1922.
In 1990 the Congress amended the Act to authorize the EPA “to treat Indian tribes as States,” § 7601(d)(1)(A), subject to the condition that “the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe pertain to the management and protection of air resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation or other areas within the tribe's jurisdiction,” § 7601(d)(2)(B). In 1998 the EPA interpreted the geographic reach of the tribal jurisdiction created in 1990 to track the definition of “Indian country” in the federal criminal code.2 Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management, 63 Fed.Reg. 7254, 7259/1 (1998) ( )(hereinafter Tribal Authority Rule). More specifically, the EPA interpreted the term “reservation” in § 7601(d)(2)(B) to include formal reservations, Pueblos, and tribal trust lands, the latter two categories being essentially informal reservations, id. at 7258/1; it interpreted the phrase “other areas within the tribe's jurisdiction” to include “all non-reservation areas of Indian country,” id. at 7259/1, i.e., the “dependent Indian communities” and “Indian allotments” referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b)-(c).3
Although the Tribal Authority Rule thus allowed Indian tribes to implement the Act over both reservation and non-reservation areas of Indian country, it differentiated between the two in an important respect: The Rule authorized each tribe to implement the Act “over its reservation without requiring the tribe to demonstrate its own jurisdiction,” whereas before implementing the Act over a “non-reservation area[ ],” the tribe would have to “demonstrate [its] jurisdiction” under federal Indian law. Id. at 7255/2. We upheld the Rule and this distinction in Arizona Public Service Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1294–95 (2000).
In the 1990 amendments to the Act the Congress also authorized the EPA to displace a tribe and directly regulate areas of Indian country in “any case in which the Administrator [of the EPA] determines that the treatment of Indian tribes as identical to States is inappropriate or administratively infeasible.” 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d)(4). In 2011, pursuant to this authority, the EPA issued the Indian Country NSR Rule here under review. 76 Fed.Reg. at 38,778/2. This rule established a federal implementation plan (FIP) including an NSR program covering all Indian country nationwide except where the EPA had already approved a tribal NSR program or expressly authorized a SIP to be enforced. Id. at 38,752/2; 40 C.F.R. §§ 49.151(c), 49.166(c).
The EPA explained it was promulgating the FIP in order to fill a regulatory gap created by the general lack of state authority to regulate air quality in Indian country and the failure of many tribes to implement NSR programs of their own:
We believe ... states generally lack the authority to regulate air quality in Indian country.... We interpret past approvals and delegations of NSR programs [in SIPs] as not extending to Indian country unless the state has made an explicit demonstration of jurisdiction over Indian country and we have explicitly approved or delegated the state's program for such area.
76 Fed.Reg. at 38,752/2 n.9;see also id. at 38,778/3 (“[O]nly a few Tribes have yet sought eligibility to administer a minor NSR program and no Tribe has yet sought eligibility for the nonattainment major NSR program”). Because SIPs did not ordinarily apply to Indian country and few tribes had sought to administer the Act over their lands, the EPA concluded much of Indian country was unregulated. The EPA therefore issued the FIP in order to fill the regulatory gap until such time as a tribe's approved NSR program displaced the FIP.
Oklahoma petitions for review of the Indian Country NSR Rule “only as it pertains to non-reservation ‘Indian country’ lands, including allotments and dependent Indian communities.” Oklahoma does not challenge the rule as it pertains to reservations, whether formal or informal. The Navajo Nation, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, and the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. intervene in support of the EPA.
Oklahoma contends the Indian Country NSR Rule is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), for two reasons: First, the regulatory gap upon which the EPA premised the Rule simply does not exist; each state's SIP applies to all non-reservation Indian country within its geographic borders except where a tribe has demonstrated its inherent jurisdiction. Because non-reservation Indian country is always covered by a SIP unless it has been displaced by a tribal implementation plan (TIP), there is no regulatory gap to be filled by a FIP. Second, the EPA was without authority to implement a nationwide FIP; the EPA, Oklahoma contends, may establish a FIP only upon finding that a specific jurisdiction's plan is inadequate. Because we grant Oklahoma's petition based upon its first argument, we do not reach its second point.
Before we may consider the merits of the parties' arguments, we must address a series of threshold issues, the first two of which are jurisdictional. First, the EPA questions whether Oklahoma has standing to bring the challenge at hand. Second, the EPA contends Oklahoma's claim that its SIP presumptively applies over non-reservation Indian country is time-barred because the issue was decided by the Tribal Authority Rule issued in 1998. Third, the EPA argues that the same claim is forfeit because Oklahoma failed to raise it in the rulemaking proceeding for the Indian Country NSR Rule now under review. Although there is something to each of these objections, none is ultimately a bar to our reaching the merits of this case.
The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements”: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Oklahoma alleges it is injured by the Indian Country NSR Rule because the Rule “divests [Oklahoma] of regulatory authority over areas otherwise within [its] purview,” to wit, non-reservation Indian country, and that injury would be redressed if the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Mfrs. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...and therefore ... ‘must justify that assumption even if no one objects to it during the comment period.’ " Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. EPA , 740 F.3d 185, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA , 135 F.3d 791, 818 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curia......
-
Emhart Indus., Inc. v. New Eng. Container Co.
...and therefore ... must justify that assumption even if no one objects to it during the comment period. Oklahoma Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 818 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ).13 While the First Circuit has not d......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Gina Mccarthy
...Id. (quoting Small Refiner Lead Phase–Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 534–35 (D.C.Cir.1983)); see also Okla. Dep't of Envtl. Control v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185, 192 (D.C.Cir.2014); Ne. Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 948 (D.C.Cir.2004) (per curiam). As EPA's response to Molte......
-
The Cherokee Nation v. United States Dep't of Interior
... ... See, ... e.g. , Okla. Stat. tit. 3A, § 262(C)(2), (H); ... Id ... 2013); cf. Okla. Dep't of Envtl ... Quality v. EPA , 740 F.3d 185, 189-90 ... agency proceedings.” See id. (internal ... ...
-
Fighting for Air in Indian Country: Clean Air Act Jurisdiction in Off-Reservation Tribal Land
...unscrupulous parties have taken advantage of [the then-] current gap in coverage”). 16. See Oklahoma Dep’t Envt’l Quality (ODEQ) v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185, 195, 44 ELR 20013 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (inding that in of-reservation areas of Indian country where tribes had not asserted regulatory authority......
-
SUPPLEMENTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING.
...he did not file a notice of appeal despite opposite relevant precedent from the Supreme Court); Okla. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding that the time to file an appeal regarding an agency action is jurisdictional). But see Util. Air Regulatory Grp. ......
-
CHAPTER 5 TRIBAL MANAGEMENT OF TRIBAL LANDS AND RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
...located in portions of Indian country that have been designated non-attainment. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C.Cir. 2014) ▪ Vacated the FIP with respect to non-reservation Indian country, holding "a state has regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Ai......
-
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
...a Federal Implementation Plan for such area pursuant to CAA § 7601(d)(4) and the TAR at § 49.11. See Okla. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2014). [47] 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d). [48] 42 U.S.C. § 7411. [49] 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d). [50] 42 U.S.C. § 7411 and §7412. [51] 42 ......