Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 17-1145

Citation862 F.3d 1
Decision Date03 July 2017
Docket NumberNo. 17-1145,17-1145
Parties CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al., Petitioners v. E. Scott PRUITT, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents American Petroleum Institute, et al., Intervenors
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Susannah L. Weaver, Sean H. Donahue, David Doniger, Meleah Geertsma, Tim Ballo, Joel Minor, Adam Kron, Peter Zalzal, Alice Henderson, Vickie Patton, Tomás Carbonell, Andres Restrepo, Joanne Marie Spalding, Ann Brewster Weeks, and Darin Schroeder were on the emergency motion for a stay or, in the alternative, summary vacatur and reply to responses in opposition to emergency motion for a stay or, in the alternative, summary vacatur.

Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Benjamin Carlisle, Attorney, were on EPA's opposition to petitioners' emergency motion for a stay or, in the alternative, summary vacatur.

William L. Wehrum, Felicia H. Barnes, Stacy R. Linden, John Wagner, Samuel B. Boxerman, Joel F. Visser, Sandra Y. Snyder, James D. Elliott, Shannon S. Broome, Charles H. Knauss, and John R. Jacus were on the industry intervenor-respondents' response in opposition to petitioners' emergency motion for a stay or, in the alternative, summary vacatur.

Before: Tatel, Brown, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.

Dissenting Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Brown.

Per Curiam:

Petitioners, a group of environmental organizations, challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to stay implementation of portions of a final rule concerning methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we conclude that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners' motion to vacate the stay.

I.

In June 2016, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy issued a final rule establishing "new source performance standards" for fugitive emissions of methane and other pollutants by the oil and natural gas industries. 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824 (June 3, 2016). The methane rule took effect on August 2, 2016, id. , and required regulated entities to conduct an "initial monitoring survey" to identify leaks by June 3, 2017, 40 C.F.R. § 60.5397a(f).

After EPA published the rule, several industry groups—including the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA), and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)—filed administrative petitions seeking reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) ; see also 82 Fed. Reg. 25,731 (June 5, 2017). That provision sets forth the circumstances under which EPA must reconsider a rule. It provides that "[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that [1] it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the notice and comment period] ... and [2] if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule ...." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) (emphasis added). The statute also provides that the "effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months." Id. The industry associations argued that CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) required EPA to reconsider the final rule because several of its provisions "were not included in the proposed rule and ... [they were therefore unable] to raise an objection during the public comment period." See, e.g. , API, Request for Administrative Reconsideration of EPA's Final Rule "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources," at 1 (Aug. 2, 2016) ("API Reconsideration Request"). They also sought a stay "pending reconsideration." Id.

By letter dated April 18, 2017, the Administrator, now Scott Pruitt, stated that EPA "[found] that the petitions have raised at least one objection to the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements" that warrants reconsideration "under 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA." Letter from E. Scott Pruitt to Howard J. Feldman, Shannon S. Broome, James D. Elliott, & Matt Hite, Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration, at 2 (Apr. 18, 2017). Accordingly, the Administrator announced, "EPA is convening a proceeding for reconsideration" of two specific provisions of the methane rule. Id. The letter also stated that "EPA intend[ed] to exercise its authority under CAA section 307 to issue a 90-day stay of the compliance date" for the fugitive emissions requirements. Id.

On June 5—just two days after the deadline for regulated parties to conduct their first emissions surveys and begin repairing leaks, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.5397a(f) —EPA published a "[n]otice of reconsideration and partial stay" in the Federal Register, 82 Fed. Reg. at 25,730. Relying on CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA granted reconsideration on four aspects of the methane rule: (1) the decision to regulate low-production wells, (2) the process for proving compliance by "alternative means," (3) the requirement that a professional engineer certify proper design of vent systems, and (4) the decision to exempt pneumatic pumps from regulation only if a professional engineer certified that it was "technically infeasible" to route such pumps "to a control device or a process." 82 Fed. Reg. at 25,731 –32. In addition, the notice "stay[ed] the effectiveness of the fugitive emissions requirements, the standards for pneumatic pumps at well sites, and the certification by a professional engineer requirements" for 90 days "pending reconsideration." 82 Fed. Reg. at 25,732. The notice explained that the stay had gone into effect on June 2, 2017—that is, three days before the notice was published in the Federal Register. 82 Fed. Reg. at 25,731.

On June 16, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) announcing its intention to extend the stay "for two years" and to "look broadly at the entire 2016 Rule" during "the reconsideration proceeding." 82 Fed. Reg. 27,645 (June 16, 2017). Comments on that NPRM are due July 17, or if any party requests a hearing, by August 9. Id.

After EPA suspended implementation of the methane rule, six environmental groups—Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Integrity Project, Earthworks, Clean Air Council, and Sierra Club—filed in this court an "emergency motion for a stay or, in the alternative, summary vacatur." According to Environmental Petitioners, EPA's stay violates CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) because "all of the issues Administrator Pruitt identified could have been, and actually were , raised (and extensively deliberated) during the comment period." Environmental Petitioners' Mot. 5 (emphasis in original). EPA opposes the motion, as do intervenors, a group of oil and gas associations including API, IPAA, and TXOGA. Together, they argue that we lack jurisdiction to review the stay, and that even if it were justiciable, the stay is lawful. We consider these arguments in turn.

II.

We begin with jurisdiction. Both EPA and Industry Intervenors argue that an agency's decision to grant reconsideration of a rule is unreviewable because it does not constitute "final action" under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). EPA Opp. 8; Intervenors' Opp. 6. Industry Intervenors argue that for the same reason we lack jurisdiction to review the stay. Intervenors' Opp. 8.

It is true that an agency's decision to grant a petition to reconsider a regulation is not reviewable final agency action. See Portland Cement Association v. EPA , 665 F.3d 177, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting that review is available "if reconsideration is denied " (emphasis added)). To be "final," agency action must "mark the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process" and "be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow." Bennett v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154, 177–78, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). By itself, EPA's decision to grant reconsideration, which merely begins a process that could culminate in no change to the rule, fails this test.

The imposition of the stay, however, is an entirely different matter. By staying the methane rule, EPA has not only concluded that section 307(d)(7)(B) requires reconsideration, but it has also suspended the rule's compliance deadlines. EPA's stay, in other words, is essentially an order delaying the rule's effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule. As we explained in a very similar situation, where an agency granted an application for interim relief from a safety standard while it reconsidered that standard: "In effect, the Administrator has granted a modification of the mandatory safety standard for the entire period of time that the petition is pending. There is no indication that the Secretary intends to reconsider this decision or to vacate the grant of interim relief. Thus, the Secretary's decision represents the final agency position on this issue, has the status of law, and has an immediate and direct effect on the parties. Therefore, we have no difficulty concluding that the Secretary has issued a final decision ...." International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Mine Safety & Health Administration , 823 F.2d 608, 614–15 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch , 713 F.2d 802, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[S]uspension of the permit process ... amounts to a suspension of the effective date of regulation ... and may be reviewed in the court of appeals as the promulgation of a regulation."); Council of Southern Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan , 653 F.2d 573, 579 nn.26 & 28 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (rejecting the argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to review an order "defer[ring] the implementation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Envtl. Def. Fund v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • 27 Enero 2021
    ...The Section 705 process contains a crucial caveat: a rule that is already in effect cannot be "postponed." Clean Air Council v. Pruitt , 862 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. , 894 F.3d 95, 113 (2d Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs allege that E......
  • Bauer v. Devos, Civil Action No. 17-1330 (RDM)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 12 Septiembre 2018
    ...that it did not also confer upon [courts] the lesser power to review the [agency's] decision to issue a stay." Clean Air Council v. Pruitt , 862 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2017).The Department's structural argument is also unpersuasive. The Department contends that because § 705 falls between §§ ......
  • Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 23 Diciembre 2017
    ...bound by the rule until that rule is amended or revoked and may not alter such a rule without notice and comment. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt , 862 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[A]n order delaying [a] rule's effective date" is "tantamount t......
  • State v. Biden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • 15 Junio 2021
    ...385 F. Supp. 3d 512 (N.D. Tex. 2018) ; (the issuance by EEOC of a right to sue letter was a final agency action); Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017), (a decision to stay, pending reconsideration, of the implementation of a final rule was a final agency action); Velesac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • DISORDERED LAW: OBAMA TO TRUMP EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORDERS MANDATING NON-ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 85 No. 2, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...(2016)). (86) Id. at 446. (87) See id. at 442-43. (88) See id. at 447. (89) Id. at 448. (90) See id. (citing Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. (91) Clear Air Council, 862 F.3d at 7 (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)). (92) Id. (93) See Nat. Res. Def. Couns.......
  • Turning a Blind Eye: The Trump Administration's Flagrant Disregard for the Warming Effects of Methane on the Earth's Climate.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 55 No. 3, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...36-37 (showing Exxon's resistance to scientific evidence of harmful consequences of GHG emissions). (104.) See Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (analyzing validity of methane NSPS stay); see also Stafford, supra note 5, at 359 (defining fugitive emissions). Fugiti......
  • Designing the New Green Deal: Where's the Sweet Spot?
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 49-5, May 2019
    • 1 Mayo 2019
    ...subpts. OOOO and OOOOa). 162. An attempt to stay the oil and gas standards was blocked by the D.C. Circuit. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 47 ELR 20084 (D.C. Cir. 2017). However, the Trump EPA proposed modii cations to the standards in late 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 52056 (Oct. 15, 2018)......
  • The Judicial Response to the Presidential Polarization of the Administrative State
    • United States
    • American Review of Public Administration, The No. 49-1, January 2019
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).City of Chicago v. Sessions, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149847 (N.D. Ill. 2017).Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit 2017).Court Overturns Eased Rule for Air Pollution at Factories. (1982, August 17). The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved from http:......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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