Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. E.P.A., BY-PRODUCTS

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON and WILKEY; Opinion for the Court filed by WILKEY; Concurring opinion filed by LEVENTHAL; Dissenting opinion filed by SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III; WILKEY; LEVENTHAL; SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III; Wilkey's
Citation600 F.2d 844,195 U.S.App.D.C. 30
Decision Date17 July 1979
Docket Number78-1239,P,78-1401,78-1331,Nos. 78-1002,78-1525,BY-PRODUCTS
Parties, 195 U.S.App.D.C. 30, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,194 CITIZENS TO SAVE SPENCER COUNTY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Respondents, Alabama Power Company et al., American Petroleum Institute, et al., Sierra Club, et al., BF Goodrich Company, American Paper Institute, et al., Hoosier Energy Division, Mountain Fuel Supply Company, Montana Power Co., et al., Natural Resources Council of Maine, Pittston Co., Intervenors. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Appellant, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Montana Power Co. et al., Intervenors. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Natural Resources Council of Maine, Appellants. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. The BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. HAMPTON ROADS ENERGY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. The MONTANA POWER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Pittston Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., Intervenors. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents. The PITTSTON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, A

Page 844

600 F.2d 844
12 ERC 1961, 195 U.S.App.D.C. 30, 9
Envtl. L. Rep. 20,194
CITIZENS TO SAVE SPENCER COUNTY et al., Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Respondents,
Alabama Power Company et al., American Petroleum Institute,
et al., Sierra Club, et al., BF Goodrich Company, American
Paper Institute, et al., Hoosier Energy Division, Mountain
Fuel Supply Company, Montana Power Co., et al., Natural
Resources Council of Maine, Pittston Co., Intervenors.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Appellant,
v.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, et al.
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,
Montana Power Co. et al., Intervenors.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
v.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, et al., Natural Resources
Council of Maine, Appellants.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Respondent.
The BF GOODRICH COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Douglas
M. Costle, Administrator, Respondents.
HAMPTON ROADS ENERGY COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, Respondent.
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Sierra Club, and Friends of the
Earth, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.
The MONTANA POWER COMPANY et al., Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator, Respondents.
NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,
Pittston Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Ideal Basic
Industries, Inc., Intervenors.
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M.
Costle, Administrator, Respondents.
The PITTSTON COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M.
Costle, Administrator, Respondents.
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE and the National Forest Products
Association, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M.
Costle, Administrator, Respondents.
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, Chemical Products
Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, FMC Corporation, Monsanto
Company, PPG Industries, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company,
Stauffer Chemical Company, Union Carbide Corporation, Allied
Chemical Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.
ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator of EPA, Respondents.
USM CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator, EPA, Respondents.
Nos. 78-1002, 78-1239, 78-1331, 78-1401, 78-1525, Part I,
78-1557, 78-1590, Part I, 78-1604, 78-1610, Part I, 78-1626,
78-1703, 78-1810, Part I, 78-1815, Part I, 78-1819, Part I,
78-1826, 1838, Part I, and 78-1839, Part I.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued 10 Oct. 1978.
Decided 27 March 1979.
As Amended 26 April and 30 April 1979.
Rehearing Denied April 19, 1979.
As Amended July 17, 1979.

Robert J. Rauch, Washington, D. C., for petitioners/appellants Environmental Defense Fund, et al., in Nos. 78-1239, 78-1401 and intervenors 78-1002.

Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D. C., with whom Philip G. Sunderland, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners/appellants, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, et al., in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1239, 78-1331, 78-1401, 78-1604 and 78-1626. Mr. Terris also argued for intervenor, Northern Cheyenne Tribe.

Francis M. Shea, Washington, D. C., with whom Richard T. Conway, James R. Bieke and William R. Galeota, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners, Montana Power Company, et al., in No. 78-1610 intervenors in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1331 and appellees in No. 78-1239.

Michael F. McBride, Washington, D. C., with whom Eugene B. Thomas, Jr. and Margaret R. A. Paradis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioners Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. in No. 78-1703 and appellee in No. 78-1239.

Albert J. Beveridge, III and Carl Eardley, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners the B. F. Goodrich Co., in No. 87-1557, intervenor in No. 78-1002 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.

J. Michael Hines, John D. Field, III and John R. Feore, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner, Hampton Roads Energy Co. in No. 78-1590 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1002.

Donald W. Markham and Jonathan B. Hill, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioner, The Pittston Co. in No. 78-1810, appellees in No. 78-1239 and intervenor in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1626.

Michael K. Glenn, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners, American Paper Institute, et al., in No. 78-1815, amicus curiae in No. 78-1239 and intervenor in No. 78-1002.

Theodore L. Garrett, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners, Manufacturing Chemists Ass'n, et al., in No. 78-1819 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1002.

H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., was on the brief, for petitioners, Alabama By-Products Corp. in No. 78-1626.

Page 849

William D. Kramer, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners Koppers Corporation and USM Corp. in No. 78-1838 and No. 78-1839.

Angus MacBeth, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Erica L. Dolgin, Atty., Dept. of Justice and Joan Z. Bernstein, Gen. Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondents.

George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., with whom Henry V. Nickel and Michael B. Barr, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Alabama Power Co., et al., in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1239.

John J. Adams and David F. Peter, Richmond, Va., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 78-1002 and 78-1239.

Jon T. Brown and J. Cathy Lichtenberg, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Hoosier Energy Division in No. 78-1002 and No. 78-1239.

George J. Meiburger, James M. Broadstone and John F. Harrington, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor/appellee Mountain Fuel Supply Co. in No. 78-1002 and No. 78-1239.

Charles F. Lettow and Henry J. Plog, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee PPG Industries, in No. 78-1239.

Fred F. Fielding, Thomas C. Watson and James Skelly Wright, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee The Sierra Pacific Power Co. in No. 78-1239.

William A. Mogel, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for intervenor Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1401, 78-1525, 78-1557, 78-1604, 78-1610, 78-1626 and 78-1703 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.

William E. Murane, Robert T. Connery, Paul D. Phillips, Denver, Colo., and William R. Duff, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor Colorado Interstate Gas Co. in Nos. 78-1002, 78-1401, 78-1525, 78-1557, 78-1604, 78-1610, 78-1626, 78-1703 and amicus curiae in No. 78-1239.

J. Eugene Marans, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for amicus curiae, Texas Industries, Inc. in No. 78-1002.

Also Michael C. Kendall, Jasper, Ind., entered an appearance for petitioners in No. 78-1002.

Also James W. Moorman, Earl Salo, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for respondents.

Also James H. Cohen, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for intervenor, Sierra Club in Nos. 78-1810, 78-1815, 78-1819, 78-1826, 78-1838 and 78-1839.

Also R. G. Groussman and J. F. Bates, Salt Lake City, Utah, entered appearances, for amicus curiae, Mountain Fuel Supply Co. in No. 78-1239.

 OUTLINE OF THE OPINION
                 Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA
                 Page
                Introduction ............................................................. 850
                 I. BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT LITIGATION ............................... 851
                 A. Statutory Inconsistency ......................................... 851
                 B. Administrative Interpretation and Action ........................ 854
                 C. Litigation ...................................................... 857
                 D. Continuing Administrative Action ................................ 857
                 II. THE FRUITLESS SEARCH FOR A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF
                 Sections 165 AND 168 ............................................... 860
                 A. Relative Weight to be Afforded the Two Sections: The
                 "Plain Language" Argument ...................................... 861
                 B. Other Sections of the Act Cited in Support of "Plain
                 Language" Contentions .......................................... 864
                 C. Legislative History of Sections 165 and 168 ..................... 866
                 D. The Overall Scheme of the Clean Air Act and the
                 Amendments of 1977 ............................................. 868
                 E. Applicable Rules of Statutory Construction ...................... 870
                III. THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR
                 PROMULGATION OF EPA'S "HARMONIZATION"
                 REGULATIONS ........................................................ 873
                 A. The Source of Authority for EPA'S Rulemaking .................... 873
                 B. The Appropriate Form of Rulemaking for EPA to Pursue
                 in Harmonizing the Conflicting Standards ....................... 874
                 1. EPA's Final Rule Incorporating Into Its
                 Regulations the Immediately Effective PSD
                 Requirements Identified in Section
                 168(b): The "First"Rule .................................... 875
                 2. EPA's Rules Providing PSD Guidance to States and
                 Implementing the Requirements of Section 165:
                 The "Second" and "Third" Rules ............................. 877
                 C. The Issuance of Final Regulations with Allegedly
                 "Retroactive" Effects .......................................... 879
                 D. The Exemption of Certain Facilities from the Permit
                 Deadline and from the Requirements of Section 165
                 Because of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
138 practice notes
  • Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch, Nos. 81-2025
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 26, 1983
    ...of air quality under Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977); Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844 (D.C.Cir.1979) (petitions to review EPA orders promulgated under Clean Air Act); Avoyelles Sportmen's League v. Alexander, 473 F.Supp. 525 (W.D.La.19......
  • Merck & Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Case No. 19-cv-01738 (APM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 8, 2019
    ..."[c]arte blanche authority" to promulgate rules on any matter relating to its enabling statute. Citizens to Save Spencer Cty. v. EPA , 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ; see also Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 105 F.3d 691, 694 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ; Am. Petrol. Inst. v. EPA ,......
  • West Virginia Coal Ass'n v. Reilly, Civ. A. No. 2:87-0834.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • December 28, 1989
    ...parties of existing duties." Id. at 469, quoting Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 876 n. 153 While at first blush EPA's written policy on in-stream treatment may appear to impose new duties upon NPDES applicants, the duties impo......
  • Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r, 154 T.C. No. 10
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • May 12, 2020
    ...obvious." Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 14 F.3d 429, 443 (9th Cir. Page 191993) (citing Citizens to Save Spencer Cty. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 884 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).2 The preamble to the final regulations explains that they were being promulgated to "provide necessary guidance to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
122 cases
  • Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch, Nos. 81-2025
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 26, 1983
    ...of air quality under Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977); Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844 (D.C.Cir.1979) (petitions to review EPA orders promulgated under Clean Air Act); Avoyelles Sportmen's League v. Alexander, 473 F.Supp. 525 (W.D.La.19......
  • Merck & Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Case No. 19-cv-01738 (APM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 8, 2019
    ..."[c]arte blanche authority" to promulgate rules on any matter relating to its enabling statute. Citizens to Save Spencer Cty. v. EPA , 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ; see also Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 105 F.3d 691, 694 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ; Am. Petrol. Inst. v. EPA ,......
  • West Virginia Coal Ass'n v. Reilly, Civ. A. No. 2:87-0834.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • December 28, 1989
    ...parties of existing duties." Id. at 469, quoting Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 876 n. 153 While at first blush EPA's written policy on in-stream treatment may appear to impose new duties upon NPDES applicants, the duties impo......
  • Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r, 154 T.C. No. 10
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • May 12, 2020
    ...obvious." Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 14 F.3d 429, 443 (9th Cir. Page 191993) (citing Citizens to Save Spencer Cty. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 884 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).2 The preamble to the final regulations explains that they were being promulgated to "provide necessary guidance to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...in three parts, each written by a diferent 14. 448 F. Supp. 89, 11 ELR 20329 (D.D.C. 1978). 15. 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1), CAA §307(b)(1). 16. 600 F.2d 844, 9 ELR 20194 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 17. 606 F.2d 1068, 9 ELR 20400 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 18. 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). member of ......
  • Historical Perspectives on §111(d) of the Clean Air Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 44-12, December 2014
    • December 1, 2014
    ...in which both provisions could be read together). 105. Scialabba , 134 S. Ct. at 2220. See also Citizens to Save Spencer Cnty. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 9 ELR 20194 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (holding that in the face of a drafting error creating an irreconcilable conlict, a creative EPA interpretation w......

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