Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | 81-2279,Nos. 81-2276,s. 81-2276 |
| Citation | 768 F.2d 385 |
| Parties | , 247 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,762 MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF the UNITED STATES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, American Methyl Corporation, Intervenor. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, American Methyl Corporation, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petitions for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection agency.
Gary P. Toth, Detroit, Mich., with whom William H. Crabtree, V. Mark Slywynsky, Michael W. Grice, Detroit, Mich., Robert G. Seasonwein, Troy, Mich., and William L. Weber, Jr., Detroit, Mich., were on brief, for petitioners in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279.
David E. Dearing, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Samuel I. Gutter, Robert A. Weissman, Attys., A. James Barnes, Gen. Counsel, Gerald K. Gleason, Asst. Gen. Counsel, E.P.A. and Jose R. Allen, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondents in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279. Nancy Marvel and Ralph Colleli, Jr., Washington, D.C., entered appearances, for respondents in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279.
James W. Moorman, Washington, D.C., with whom Scott N. Stone, Russell V. Randle and David B. Robinson, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for intervenor American Methyl Corp. Arnold B. Podgorsky and Laurence S. Kirsch, Washington, D.C., entered appearances, for intervenor in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279.
V. Peter Wynne, was on brief, for Atlantic Richfield Co., amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279.
Milton D. Andrews and Lance E. Tunick, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Auto. Importers of America, Inc., amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 81-2276 and 81-2279.
Before TAMM, WALD and MIKVA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
Petitioners 1 seek review of a decision of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the "Administrator" or the "EPA") to grant a waiver of the Clean Air Act's (the "Act") restrictions on new fuels or fuel additives, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(f)(4), to American Methyl Corporation 2 for a proprietary fuel known as Petrocoal. Finding that the EPA's decision to grant the waiver was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, we vacate the Petrocoal waiver and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Since this court has already had occasion to set forth the background of this case in American Methyl Corp. v. EPA, 749 F.2d 826 (D.C.Cir.1984), we present here only a brief synopsis of that background, highlighting the facts particularly relevant to the present petition. The statutory provision at issue is section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act which places substantial restrictions on new fuels or fuel additives (collectively referred to as "fuel"). Specifically section 211(f)(1) makes it
... unlawful for any manufacturer ... to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for general use in light duty motor vehicles ... which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any ... [1975 or later model year vehicle or engine].
42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(f)(1). 3 Section 211(f)(4), however, allows the Administrator to waive this prohibition in specified circumstances:
The Administrator, upon application of any manufacturer ... may waive the prohibitions established ... if he determines that the applicant has established that such fuel or fuel additive or a specified concentration thereof, and the emission products of such fuel or additive or specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of any vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle with the emission standards with respect to which it has been certified pursuant to section 7525 of this title.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(f)(4).
On February 20, 1981, American Methyl applied for a section 211(f)(4) waiver for a methanol/gasoline blend fuel called Petrocoal. EPA published a public notice on April 13, 1981, acknowledging receipt of the application and soliciting comments on whether Petrocoal met the waiver criteria. See 46 Fed.Reg. 21,695 (1981), Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 79. Under section 211(f)(4), a waiver is treated as granted if the Administrator fails to grant or deny the application within 180 days of its receipt. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7545(f)(4). 4 By mutual consent of the EPA and American Methyl, this 180-day review period, scheduled to expire on August 19, 1981, was extended, see 46 Fed.Reg. 43,082 (Aug. 26, 1981) (30 day extension) and 46 Fed.Reg. 47,299 (Sept. 25, 1981) (10 day extension), until September 28, 1981, when EPA granted a conditional waiver for Petrocoal. See Petrocoal Waiver, 46 Fed.Reg. 48,975 (Oct. 5, 1981). The Administrator 5 determined that American Methyl had met the burden necessary to establish its eligibility for a waiver for Petrocoal under section 211(f)(4) provided that the finished fuel met the following conditions:
[T]he concentration of methanol ... does not exceed 12 percent, by volume, the concentration of total alcohols in the fuel does not exceed 15 percent, by volume, the ratio of methanol to four-carbon alcohols in the finished fuel does not exceed 6.5 to 1, by volume and the finished fuel is blended such that it meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) fuel volatility specifications for the area and time of year in which it is sold.
On December 4, 1981, MVMA filed both a petition for administrative reconsideration of the waiver by the EPA and the present petition for judicial review of the waiver by this court. The EPA did not act on MVMA's petition for administrative reconsideration. On February 22, 1983, MVMA filed a supplemental petition for reconsideration supported by new data which purportedly contradicted one of the EPA's basic assumptions in granting the waiver--namely that increased evaporative emissions due to the use of Petrocoal could be controlled by controlling the volatility of the blended fuel. This supplemental petition together with the new data submitted prompted the EPA to reconsider the waiver grant, see 48 Fed.Reg. 19,779, 19,780 (1983) (), and to a proposed revocation of the waiver. See 49 Fed.Reg. 11,879, 11,885 (1984) (). Coincidentally with the EPA's publication of the proposed notice of revocation, the parties to the pending petition for judicial review of the waiver grant jointly moved to remand the record to the EPA for further administrative proceedings. This court granted that motion on April 3, 1984.
A month later on May 3, 1984, however, American Methyl formally requested the EPA to terminate the revocation proceeding on the ground that section 211(f) did not authorize the EPA to revoke a waiver. The EPA's General Counsel denied this request in a letter ruling dated June 8, 1984. American Methyl petitioned this court for judicial review of both the notice of proposed revocation and the letter ruling. On July 27, 1984, this court granted American Methyl's motion to stay the EPA's proposed revocation proceeding. On the merits, this court held that the EPA may not revoke a waiver pursuant to section 211(f), but may forbid the marketing of Petrocoal pursuant to section 211(c) which grants the Administrator the authority to regulate fuels or fuel additives. American Methyl, 749 F.2d at 828. The case was remanded to the EPA for further proceedings pursuant to section 211(c). To date, the EPA has not initiated a proceeding to regulate Petrocoal under section 211(c).
Following this court's remand to the EPA for further proceedings pursuant to section 211(c), MVMA moved the court to order the return of the record on its petition for review of the original waiver decision and to hear oral argument. The court granted the motion on February 13, 1985, and oral argument was heard on May 14, 1985.
The principal issue presented in this case is the reasonableness of the EPA's determination that American Methyl sufficiently established that Petrocoal met the criteria to qualify for a waiver under section 211(f)(4). This challenge to the grant of the Petrocoal waiver, however, has raised two initial questions of statutory construction related to the showing an applicant must make in order to qualify for a section 211(f)(4) waiver. Specifically, the statutory questions are: (1) Does section 211(f)(4) require the EPA to determine that a fuel will not cause or contribute to any increase in emissions or only that it will not cause or contribute to an increase which exceeds applicable emission standards; and (2) Does section 211(f)(4) oblige the EPA to require applicants to submit emission data on vehicles tested over a 50,000-mile period or may the EPA evaluate the long-term effects of a new fuel on the basis of reasoned technical judgments?
This court in reviewing the EPA's construction and implementation of the terms of section 211(f)(4) may reverse the agency's action only if it is outside the bounds of its statutory authority, see American Methyl, 749 F.2d at 833 (), or if it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 6 With respect to issues of statutory construction, if Congress' intent can be ascertained from the plain language of the statute or its legislative history then that intent must be given effect. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
... ... challenge, Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed ... Cir. July 17, 2012); ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 669 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2012); NRDC v ... established the upwind State's SIP as the vehicle for implementing the upwind State's good neighbor ... , the text of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) tells us that the "amounts which will ... contribute" to ... Cir. 2011) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, ... ...
-
North Carolina v. E.P.A.
... ... and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") adopted the rule as one, integral action, we ... intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S ... Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins ... ...
-
Mass. v. E.P.A.
... ... The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate ... and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, ... reasoning in deciding the matter now before us ... There is an additional ... motor vehicle emissions could weaken efforts to persuade ... See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1266 (D.C.Cir.2004). In ... surely could not have meant it." Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1089 ... ...
-
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
... ... challenge, Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed ... 3d 1342 (D.C.Cir.2012); ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 669 F.3d 330 (D.C.Cir.2012); NRDC v ... established the upwind State's SIP as the vehicle for implementing the upwind State's good neighbor ... , the text of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) tells us that the amounts which will ... contribute to a ... 645 F.3d 420, 427 (D.C.Cir.2011) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, ... ...
-
The Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives
...fuels are produced and what additives fuels contain. he 1990 CAA Amendments 47. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 389, 393, 15 ELR 20762 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 48. Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives; MMT-Suspension of Enforcement, 44 Fed. Reg. 32281, 32282 (......
-
Blowing Hot and Cold on the Frozen Tundra: a Review of Alaska's Quasi-estoppel Doctrine
...of justice."). [195] American Methyl Corp. v. E.P.A., 749 F2d 826, 833 n.44 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 768 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also United States v. 49.01 Acres of Land, 802 F.2d 387, 390 (10th Cir. 1986) ("[A]doption of judicial estoppel . . .......