American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. E.P.A.
| Citation | 283 F.3d 355 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1531.,No. 97-1573.,No. 97-1576.,No. 97-1596.,No. 97-1565.,No. 97-1574.,No. 97-1579.,No. 97-1559.,No. 97-1505.,No. 97-1572.,No. 97-1440.,No. 97-1555.,No. 97-1518.,No. 97-1619.,No. 97-1566.,No. 97-1575.,No. 97-1514.,No. 97-1551.,No. 97-1510.,No. 97-1562.,No. 97-1567.,No. 97-1591.,No. 97-1571.,No. 97-1502.,No. 97-1588.,No. 97-1570.,No. 97-1508.,No. 97-1568.,No. 97-1512.,No. 97-1584.,No. 97-1509.,No. 97-1598.,No. 97-1548.,No. 97-1595.,No. 97-1592.,No. 97-1585.,No. 97-1539.,No. 97-1546.,No. 97-1578.,No. 97-1552.,No. 97-1519.,No. 97-1441.,No. 97-1589.,No. 97-1561.,No. 97-1526.,No. 97-1513.,No. 97-1553.,No. 97-1586.,No. 97-1597.,No. 97-1587.,No. 97-1582.,97-1440.,97-1441.,97-1502.,97-1505.,97-1508.,97-1509.,97-1510.,97-1512.,97-1513.,97-1514.,97-1518.,97-1519.,97-1526.,97-1531.,97-1539.,97-1546.,97-1548.,97-1551.,97-1552.,97-1553.,97-1555.,97-1559.,97-1561.,97-1562.,97-1565.,97-1566.,97-1567.,97-1568.,97-1570.,97-1571.,97-1572.,97-1573.,97-1574.,97-1575.,97-1576.,97-1578.,97-1579.,97-1582.,97-1584.,97-1585.,97-1586.,97-1587.,97-1588.,97-1589.,97-1591.,97-1592.,97-1595.,97-1596.,97-1597.,97-1598.,97-1619. |
| Parties | AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Intervenors. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
F. William Brownell and Norman W. Fichthorn argued the causes for State and Business Petitioners, Non-Environmental Petitioners, and Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97-1440 and 97-1441. With them on the briefs were Henry V. Nickel, Thomas Richichi, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Judith L. French and Bryan F. Zima, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Ohio, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas Casey, Solicitor General, Alan F. Hoffman and Pamela J. Stevenson, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Michigan, Mark J. Rudolph, Senior Counsel, State of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Robert R. Gasaway, Daryl Joseffer, David E. Menotti, Jeffrey A. Knight, G. William Frick, M. Elizabeth Cox, Robin S. Conrad, Jan Amundson, Beth L. Law, Robert S. Digges, Harold P. Quinn Jr., David M. Flannery, Gale Lea, Russell S. Frye, Richard Wasserstrom, Julie C. Becker, Jeffery L. Leiter, Chet M. Thompson, Douglas I. Greenhaus, Maurice H. McBride, Gary H. Baise, David F. Zoll, Ronald A. Shipley, Peter S. Glaser, Grant Crandall, Timothy L. Harker, Eugene M. Trisko, Thomas J. Graves, Kurt E. Blase, Erika Z. Jones, Timothy S. Bishop, Adam C. Sloane, Duane J. Desiderio, and David M. Friedland.
Robert E. Yuhnke argued the cause for Environmental Group and Citizen Petitioners in 97-1440. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Herr-Cardillo.
James M. Rinaca, Robert R. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Company and American Road and Transportation Builders Association in 97-1440 and 97-1441.
Norman L. Rave Jr. and David J. Kaplan, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent in 97-1440 and 97-1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Thomas A. Lorenzen, Attorney, John Hannon, Gerald Gleason, Carol S. Holmes and Steven Silverman, Attorneys, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Edward G. Bohlen, Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John J. Farmer Jr., Attorney General, Howard Geduldig, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General, Maureen D. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, State of New Hampshire, William Sorrell, Attorney General, Erick Titrud, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Kimberly Massicotte, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, and Howard I. Fox were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts, New Jersey and American Lung Association, and amici curiae New York, et al. in 97-1440 and 97-1441.
Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.
In these consolidated cases, we consider challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and ozone. Petitioners originally raised a broad range of issues, including the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act, the contours of EPA's authority to promulgate air quality standards, and the lawfulness of the challenged standards. We addressed many of these issues in an earlier ruling that the Supreme Court subsequently reversed in part and affirmed in part. On remand, only Petitioners' specific challenges to the air quality standards remain unresolved. Rejecting the argument that the language and reasoning of our earlier decision determine the outcome of these remaining claims, and finding the challenged air quality standards neither arbitrary nor capricious, we deny the petitions for review except to the extent the Supreme Court's and our earlier decisions require further action by EPA.
The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, directs the Environmental Protection Agency to establish and periodically review primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"), id. § 7409, for any pollutant the "emissions of which ... cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," id. § 7408(a)(1)(A). Section 109(b)(1) of the Act directs EPA to set the primary NAAQS at levels "the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, ... allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health." Id. § 7409(b)(1). Secondary NAAQS must be set at "level[s] ... the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator ... [are] requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects...." Id. § 7409(b)(2). Under the Act, secondary NAAQS protect such aspects of the public "welfare" as "soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, [domesticated] animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, ... climate," and property values. Id. § 7602(h).
The Act calls for the appointment of "an independent scientific review committee," the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ("CASAC"), and tasks this committee with periodically reviewing the NAAQS and advising EPA of any need for new standards or for revisions to existing standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(2)(A), (B); see also Nat'l Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 62 Fed. Reg. 38,652, 38,653 (Jul. 18, 1997) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 50.7 (1999)) ("Particulate Matter NAAQS"). The seven-member committee comprises "at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing State air pollution control agencies." 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(2)(A). The Act directs CASAC to "advise the [EPA] Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised [NAAQS]," and to "describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information[.]" Id. § 7409(d)(2)(C). When EPA proposes to issue new or revise existing NAAQS, it must "set forth or summarize and provide a reference to any pertinent findings, recommendations, and comments by [CASAC]." Id. § 7607(d)(3). If the proposed rule "differs in any important respect from any of [CASAC's] recommendations," the Agency must provide "an explanation of the reasons for such differences." Id.
Once EPA establishes NAAQS for a particular pollutant, the standards become the centerpiece of a complex statutory regime aimed at reducing the pollutant's atmospheric concentration. EPA and the States must first designate areas of the country that fail to meet the standards — that is, areas in which atmospheric concentrations of the pollutant exceed allowable levels. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)-(2). Each State must then adopt a plan that "provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of [the] primary" NAAQS, id. § 7410(a)(1), through, for example, regulation of wood fires or automobile or power plant emissions. States must submit their plans to EPA for approval, and may have to make revisions if the Agency finds the plans inadequate. States that fail to develop adequate plans are subject to sanctions, id. § 7509, or to imposition of a federal implementation plan, id. § 7410(c)(1).
These consolidated cases concern NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone, two ubiquitous atmospheric pollutants. The term "particulate matter," or "PM," refers to all "solid particles and liquid droplets found in air." OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION, U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-454/R-00-005, AIR QUALITY INDEX: A GUIDE TO AIR QUALITY AND YOUR HEALTH 11 (2000) ("EPA, AIR QUALITY INDEX"). Although these particles and droplets come in varying sizes, only particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter — so-called "fine PM" or "PM2.5" — is relevant here. As originally filed, these cases also concerned "coarse" particulate matter, or particles and droplets between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter, but we resolved all issues relating to this "coarse particulate matter" in our earlier ruling. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1053-55 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("ATA I"), reh'g granted in part and denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("ATA II"), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) ("Whitman").
PM2.5 is associated with a range of adverse health effects such as coughing; shortness of breath; aggravation of existing respiratory conditions like asthma and chronic bronchitis; increased susceptibility to respiratory infections; and heightened risk of premature death. EPA, AIR QUALITY INDEX at 11. High PM2.5 concentrations also impair visibility, reducing people's "well-being ..., both where they live and work, and in places [like national parks and wilderness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Envtl. Def. Fund v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...previously upheld a challenge to EPA's practice of relying on studies with confidential underlying data. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA , 283 F.3d 355, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The D.C. Circuit concluded, in part, that "requiring agencies to obtain and publicize the data underlying all s......
-
Envtl. Def. Fund v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...upheld a challenge to EPA's practice of relying on studies with confidential underlying data. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355,Page 6 372 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The D.C. Circuit concluded, in part, that "requiring agencies to obtain and publicize the data underlying all studies......
-
Arizona Public Service Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.
..."particulate matter." See supra Part I. PM "refers to all `solid particles and liquid droplets found in air.'" Am. Trucking Assoc., Inc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 359 (D.C.Cir.2002). 11. In a 1994 letter to the EPA, APS stated "since there is no quantifiable relationship between opacity and [PM......
-
Oceana Inc. v. Locke .
...on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851; see also Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A., 283 F.3d 355, 362 (D.C.Cir.2002) (function of court is not to “resolve disagreement among the experts or to judge the merits of competing expert vie......
-
EPA's Fine Particulate Air Pollution Control Program
...Ass’n v. EPA, 195 F.3d 4, 30 ELR 20119 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 43. 531 U.S. 457, 31 ELR 20512 (2001). 44. American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 32 ELR 20568 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 45. U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 69 Fed. Reg. 45592 (July 30, 2004). 4......
-
Introduction to Air Pollution
...to collect data on PM 2.5 at approximately 57. Pub. L. No. 105-78, 112 Stat. 107 (1998). 58. 175 F.3d at 1027. 59. 531 U.S. at 457. 60. 283 F.3d 355, 32 ELR 20568 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2002). 61. Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107. 1,500 sites, which was needed to designate nonattainment area......
-
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
...part, reversed in part Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n, 53 U.S. 457, 31 ELR 20512 (2001), on remand , American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 32 ELR 20568 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 151. Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards and G......
-
Shifting sands: the limits of science in setting risk standards.
...not necessarily correctly) found EPA's decision making to withstand the arbitrary and capricious test. Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 358 (D.C. Cir. (21) See infra note 370 and accompanying text (detailing the amount of money spent on compliance with the Clean Air Act). (22) The ......