American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.

Decision Date14 May 1999
Docket NumberNos. 97-1440,97-1546,97-1551,97-1441,97-1548,s. 97-1440
PartiesAMERICAN 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.
CourtU.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 Act Petitioners/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 State Petitioners 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 intervenor American 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. *

Separate opinion dissenting from Part I filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

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. See Clean Air Act §§ 108-09, 42 U.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. See National 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 I we 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. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 ("All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."). We remand the cases for EPA to develop a construction of the act that satisfies this constitutional requirement.

In Part II we 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"), and Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA").

In Part III we 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 IV we 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).

I. Delegation

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. See J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Civil Action No. 01-702 (D. N.J. 4/19/2001)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 19 Abril 2001
    ...NAAQS for PM-10, as well as new NAAQS the EPA had issued for ozone at the same time. See American Trucking Assoc., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 88. With respect to the new PM NAAQS, the Court of Appeals found "ample support for EPA's decision to regulate coarse particulate ......
  • South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep., Civil Action No. 01-702.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 16 Abril 2003
    ...of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found such a standard unenforceable, see American Trucking Assocs., Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C.Cir. 1999), rev'd in part, Whitman v. American Trucking Assocs., 531 U.S. 457, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.E......
  • Becker v. Federal Election Commission
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 5 Octubre 2000
    ...a grant of discretion would violate the nondelegation doctrine as recently applied by the D.C. Circuit. See American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. granted, Browner v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2003 (2000). Such summary treatment does no......
  • Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Morgan Drexen, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • 10 Enero 2014
    ...121 S.Ct. 903 (emphasis added) (final alteration in original) (quoting Court of Appeals decision in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. E.P.A., 175 F.3d 1027, 1034 (D.C.Cir.1999), which the Supreme Court reversed in Whitman ). Here, the Dodd–Frank Act provides an intelligible principle ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
24 books & journal articles
  • The State Implementation Plan Process
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • 18 Agosto 2010
    ...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......
  • EPA's Fine Particulate Air Pollution Control Program
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 44-11, November 2014
    • 1 Noviembre 2014
    ...2014); American Farm Bureau Fed’n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 21. 42 U.S.C. §7409(b)(1). 22. American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 29 ELR 21071 (D.C. Cir. 1999), reversed on other grounds sub nom. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 31 ELR 20512 (2001). 23.......
  • The Constitution, the Environment, and the Prospect of Enhanced Executive Power
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 40-10, October 2010
    • 1 Octubre 2010
    ...Waste Agency of N. Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159, 31 ELR 20382 (2001). 105. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 29 ELR 21071 (D.C. Cir. 1999), modiied on reh’g , 195 F.3d 4, 30 ELR 20119 (D.C. Cir. 1999), af’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Whitman v. ......
  • Introduction to Air Pollution
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • 18 Agosto 2010
    ...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......
  • 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