American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 97-1440,97-1546,97-1551,97-1441,97-1548,s. 97-1440 |
| Citation | American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) |
| Parties | AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Intervenors. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Intervenors. to 97-1553, 97-1555, 97-1559, 97-1561, 97-1562, 97-1565 to 97-1568, 97-1570 to 97-1576, 97-1578, 97-1579, 97-1582, 97-1584 to 97-1589, 97-1592, 97-1594 to 97-1598 97-1502, 97-1505, 97-1508 to 97-1510, 97-1512 to 97-1514, 97-1518, 97-1519, 97-1526, 97-1531, 97-1539, 97-1591 and 97-1619. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency.
F. William Brownell argued the cause for the Non-State Clean Air ActPetitioners/Intervenors in 97-1441.With him on the briefs were Henry V. Nickel, Edward W. Warren, Gary E. Marchant, Robert R. Gasaway, Daniel R. Barney, Lynda S. Mounts, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Dimitri G.(Jim) Daskal, Peter S. Glaser, G. William Frick, M. Elizabeth Cox, Jan Amundson, David E. Menotti, William F. Pedersen, Julie C. Becker, Harold P. Quinn, Jr., David M. Flannery, L. Poe Leggette, Russell S. Frye, Kathy D. Bailey, Roy S. Belden, Cynthia H. Evans, Maurice H. McBride, David F. Zoll, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Jeffrey L. Leiter, Chet M. Thompson, Douglas I. Greenhaus, Grant Crandall, Eugene M. Trisko, David M. Friedland, Gary H. Baise, Steven F. Hirsch, Erika Z. Jones, Timothy S. Bishop, Timothy L. Harker, Thomas J. Graves and James M. Rinaca.
Edward W. Warren argued the cause for Small Business Petitioners and Intervenor in 97-1440 and 97-1441.With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Barney, Lynda S. Mounts, Gary E. Marchant, Robert R. Gasaway, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Dimitri G.(Jim) Daskal, Jan S. Amundson, Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, Ross S. Antonson, Jeffrey L. Leiter, Chet M. Thompson, Douglas I. Greenhaus, David M. Friedland, Gary H. Baise, Steven F. Hirsch, Erika Z. Jones, Timothy S. Bishop, Barry M. Hartman and Leif King.
Susan E. Ashbrook and Andrew S. Bergman, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Ohio, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John C. Scherbarth and Todd B. Adams, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Michigan, and Mark J. Rudolph, Deputy Chief, State of West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, were on the briefs for the StatePetitioners in 97-1440 and 97-1441.
David J. Kaplan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Robert G. Dreher, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, argued the cause for respondent in 97-1441.With David J. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Alice L. Mattice and Naikang Tsao, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Amey W. Marrella, Michael L. Goo and Gerald K. Gleason, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Howard I. Fox argued the cause in 97-1441 and filed the briefs in 97-1440 and 97-1441 for intervenorAmerican Lung Association.
Edward G. Bohlen, Assistant Attorney General, State of Massachusetts, Catherine A. Tormey, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey, Kimberly P. Massicotte, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, John H. Hasen, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, Jared Snyder and Andrew J. Gershon, Assistant Attorneys General, State of New York, and Maureen D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, State of New Hampshire, were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey, and amici curiae New York, et al. in 97-1441.John M. Looney, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, entered an appearance.
C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97-1441.
David E. Menotti and William F. Pedersen argued the cause for Non-State Petitioners on Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 97-1440.With them on the briefs were David H. Kim, Jeffrey A. Knight, Daniel R. Barney, Lynda S. Mounts, Steven A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Julie Becker, David M. Flannery, L. Poe Leggette, Edward W. Warren, Gary E. Marchant, Robert R. Gasaway, Dimitri G. Daskal, Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Russell B. Frye, Kathy D. Bailey, Cynthia H. Evans, Jan S. Amundson, Douglas I. Greenhaus, G. William Frick, M. Elizabeth Cox, Victoria A. Cochran, Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, Ross S. Antonson, David M. Friedland, Jeffrey L. Leiter, Chet M. Thompson, Gary H. Baise, Steven F. Hirsch, Erika Z. Jones, Peter S. Glaser, Kurt E. Blase, Timothy S. Bishop, Maurice H. McBride, David F. Zoll, Kathryn Smith, Christina Franz, Michael A. McCord and James M. Rinaca.
Robert E. Yuhnke argued the cause for Environmental Group and Citizen Petitioners in 97-1440.With him on the briefs was David S. Baron.
Steven J. Burr argued the cause for the Industry Petitioners on Coarse Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 97-1440.With him on the briefs were Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Erika Z. Jones, Timothy S. Bishop and Vicki Arroyo Cochran.
Mary F. Edgar, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Robert G. Dreher, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, argued the cause for respondent in 97-1440.With Mary F. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Norman L. Rave, Jr., Naikang Tsao and Cecilia E. Kim, Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice, Gerald K. Gleason and Michael L. Goo, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Karen L. Egbert, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Amey W. Marrella, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, entered appearances.
Edward G. Bohlen, Assistant Attorney General, State of Massachusetts, Catherine A. Tormey, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey, John M. Looney, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Ronald A. Shems, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, and Maureen D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, State of New Hampshire, were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey, and amici curiae New York, et al. in 97-1440.Andrew J. Gershon, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, entered an appearance.
C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97-1440.
Before: WILLIAMS, GINSBURG and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.*
Introduction
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate and periodically revise national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for each air pollutant identified by the agency as meeting certain statutory criteria.SeeClean Air Act §§ 108-09,42U.S.C. §§ 7408-09.For each pollutant, EPA sets a "primary standard"--a concentration level "requisite to protect the public health" with an "adequate margin of safety"--and a "secondary standard"--a level "requisite to protect the public welfare."Id.§ 7409(b).
In July 1997 EPA issued final rules revising the primary and secondary NAAQS for particulate matter ("PM") and ozone.SeeNational Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 62 Fed.Reg. 38,652(1997)("PM Final Rule");National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 62 Fed.Reg. 38,856(1997)("Ozone Final Rule").Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule.
In Part Iwe find that the construction of the Clean Air Act on which EPA relied in promulgating the NAAQS at issue here effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.SeeU.S. Const. art. I, § 1().We remand the cases for EPA to develop a construction of the act that satisfies this constitutional requirement.
In Part IIwe reject the following claims: that § 109(d) of the Act allows EPA to consider costs; that EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund; that the NAAQS revisions violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ("UMRA"), andRegulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA").
In Part IIIwe decide two ozone-specific statutory issues, holding that the 1990 revisions to the Clean Air Act limit EPA's ability to enforce new ozone NAAQS and that EPA cannot ignore the possible health benefits of ozone.
Finally, in Part IVwe resolve various challenges to the PM NAAQS.We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM sub10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious; we reject petitioners' claims that EPA must treat PM sub2.5 as a "new pollutant," that EPA must identify a biological mechanism explaining PM's harmful effects, and that the Clean Air Act requires secondary NAAQS to be set at levels that eliminate all adverse visibility effects.
The remaining issues cannot be resolved until such time as EPA may develop a constitutional construction of the act(and, if appropriate, modify the disputed NAAQS in accordance with that construction).
Certain "Small Business Petitioners" argue in each case that EPA has construed §§ 108 & 109 of the Clean Air Act so loosely as to render them unconstitutional delegations of legislative power.We agree.Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reasonable, EPA appears to have articulated no "intelligible principle" to channel its application of these factors; nor is one apparent from the statute.The nondelegation doctrine requires such a principle.SeeJ.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep.
... ... Pomar, Esq., South Jersey Legal Services, Inc., Camden, NJ, Jerome Baiter, Esq., Michael ... States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to implement Title VI when the NJDEP issued air ... against Plaintiffs and other African-American and Hispanic residents of Waterfront South in ... a standard unenforceable, see American Trucking Assocs., Inc. v. United States Environmental ... ...
-
Becker v. Federal Election Commission
... ... entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 ... American Booksellers Ass'n, 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988) ... The issue before us is a narrow one: whether the FEC debate ... Circuit. See American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir ... ...
-
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Morgan Drexen, Inc.
... ... Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 472, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 ... original) (quoting Court of Appeals decision in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027, 1034 ... ...
-
Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
... ... American Forest & Paper Association; National Association of Home ... EPA No. Clean Water 40 CFR ... Before: James ... , 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ("Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the [discourse] that the ... of construction equipment and vehicles, local trucking for an unregulated facility such as a grocery store," id ... Phase I standard for designation is not the issue before us. Before us is whether EPA acted arbitrarily in declining to ... ...
-
Progress Toward Implementing The Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Stay Tuned
...2 This article will focus on the ozone standard and not the particulate matter standard. 3 American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The D.C. Circuit held that the EPA had interpreted the provisions of the Clean Air Act vesting in it the authority to issue the N......
-
Introduction to Air Pollution
...U.S. 1034 (1982); Lead Indus. Ass’n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1154, 10 ELR 20643 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied , 449 U.S. 1042 (1981). 38. 175 F.3d 1027, 29 ELR 21071 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 39. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 31 ELR 20512 (2001) (reversing the case on other groun......
-
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
...for Leaner Vehicles and Cleaner Gasoline (1998). 149. he California program is discussed infra §7. 150. American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 29 ELR 21071 (D.C. Cir. 1999), judgment airmed in part, reversed in part Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n, 53 U.S. 457, 31 ELR 20512 (2001......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...265 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001). 117. American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 198 F.3d 275, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2000); American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1046 n.6, 29 ELR 21071 (D.C. Cir. 1999). See also 40 C.F.R. pt. 50, app. H. 118. 40 C.F.R. §50.9. 119. Southwestern Pa. Growth Alliance v. B......
-
Gillian E. Metzger, Abortion, Equality, and Administrative Regulation
...place under the rubric of 'ordinary' administrative law rather than 'constitutional' administrative law"); Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (distinguishing between assessing constitutionality of delegation and whether in exercising delegated powers agency act......