New York v. U.S. E.P.A., No. 02-1387.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation413 F.3d 3
Decision Date24 June 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-1448.,No. 03-1016.,No. 03-1048.,No. 03-1033.,No. 03-1177.,No. 03-1040.,No. 03-1051.,No. 03-1045.,No. 03-1052.,No. 03-1135.,No. 03-1176.,No. 03-1036.,No. 03-1104.,No. 02-1387.,No. 03-1047.,No. 03-1457.,No. 03-1057.,No. 03-1054.,No. 03-1131.,No. 03-1046.,No. 03-1041.,No. 03-1175.,No. 03-1049.,No. 03-1178.,No. 03-1055.,No. 03-1130.,No. 03-1044.,No. 03-1056.,No. 03-1050.,No. 03-1437.
PartiesState of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors
413 F.3d 3
State of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent
NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors
No. 02-1387.
No. 03-1016.
No. 03-1033.
No. 03-1036.
No. 03-1040.
No. 03-1041.
No. 03-1044.
No. 03-1045.
No. 03-1046.
No. 03-1047.
No. 03-1048.
No. 03-1049.
No. 03-1050.
No. 03-1051.
No. 03-1052.
No. 03-1054.
No. 03-1055.
No. 03-1056.
No. 03-1057.
No. 03-1104.
No. 03-1130.
No. 03-1131.
No. 03-1135.
No. 03-1175.
No. 03-1176.
No. 03-1177.
No. 03-1178.
No. 03-1437.
No. 03-1448.
No. 03-1457.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued January 25, 2005.
Decided June 24, 2005.

Page 4

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 5

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 6

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 7

On Petitions for Review of Final Action of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

F. William Brownell argued the cause for Industry Petitioners. With him on the briefs were Henry V. Nickel, Makram B. Jaber, David S. Harlow, William H. Lewis, Jr., Leslie Sue Ritts, and Lorane F. Hebert. David F. Zoll entered an appearance.

Michael J. Myers and J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New York, argued the cause for Government Petitioners. With them on the briefs were Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Peter Lehner, Assistant Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of California, Matthew J. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Connecticut, Kimberly Massicotte and Matthew Levine, Assistant Attorneys General, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Delaware, Valerie S. Csizmadia, Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Illinois, Thomas Davis, Assistant Attorney General, G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Maine, Gerald D. Reid, Assistant Attorney General, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Maryland, Kathy M. Kinsey, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, James R. Milkey and William L. Pardee, Assistant Attorneys General, Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Hampshire, Maureen D. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Jersey, Kevin Auerbacher, Jean Reilly, and Ruth Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, Robert A. Reiley, Assistant Counsel, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Patrick C. Lynch, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Rhode Island, Tricia K. Jedele, Special Assistant Attorney General, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Vermont, Erick Titrud and Kevin O. Leske, Assistant Attorneys General, Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Wisconsin, Thomas L. Dosch, Assistant Attorney General, Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the District of Columbia, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, Donna M. Murasky, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephen Shane Stark, William M. Dillon, Kathrine Currie Pittard, Robert N. Kwong, David Schott, Steven M. Basha, Leslyn Syren, Phillip M. Jay, Barbara Baird, Daniel C. Esty, Christopher P. McCormack, Christopher G. King, and Andrew Schwartz, Counsel. Kevin P. Maloney, John V. Dorsey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Lisa S. Gelb, and Michael H. Heneghan, Counsel, entered appearances.

Howard I. Fox argued the cause for Environmental Petitioners. With him on the briefs were Keri N. Powell, Ann B. Weeks, Jonathan F. Lewis, James R. May,

Page 8

Kenneth T. Kristl, John D. Walke, and David G. McIntosh. David G. Hawkins and James M. Stuhltrager entered appearances.

John F. Shepherd argued the cause for petitioner Newmont Mining Corporation. With him on the briefs were Denise W. Kennedy and Robert T. Connery.

Hope M. Babcock and William D. Evans, Senior Assistant County Attorney, were on the brief of amici curiae American Thoracic Society, et al., in support of Environmental Petitioners.

Lois Godfrey Wye, Norman L. Rave, Jr., and Angeline Purdy, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With them on the brief were John C. Cruden, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Monica Derbes Gibson, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

David Driesen and Christopher H. Schroeder were on the brief of amici curiae Clean Air Trust and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al.

Leslie Sue Ritts, Lorane F. Hebert, William H. Lewis, Jr., Michael W. Steinberg, Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, Makram B. Jaber, David S. Harlow, Russell S. Frye, John L. Wittenborn, Martha Elizabeth Cox, and Robert A. Messina were on the brief of Industry Intervenors. Michael A. McCord, Michael B. Barr, Charles H. Knauss, and Douglas S. Burdin entered appearances.

Keri N. Powell argued the cause for Environmental Intervenors. With her on the brief were Howard I. Fox, John D. Walke, David G. McIntosh, Ann B. Weeks, and Jonathan F. Lewis.

Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Roger L. Chaffe and Carl Josephson, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Gregg D. Renkes, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Alaska, Steve E. Mulder, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Carter, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Special Counsel, Phill Kline, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Kansas, David D. Davies, Deputy Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of North Dakota, Charles M. Carvell and Lyle G. Witham, Assistant Attorneys General, John Bruning, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Nebraska, Jodi M. Fenner, Assistant Attorney General, Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of South Carolina, J. Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of South Dakota, Roxanne Giedd, Deputy Attorney General, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Utah, and Fred Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief of Group I State Intervenors in support of respondent.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Jersey, Kevin P. Auerbacher, Jean P. Reilly, and Ruth E. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Connecticut, Kimberly Massicotte and Matthew Levine, Assistant Attorneys General, Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of California, Matthew J. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Delaware, Valerie S. Csizmadia, Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Illinois, Thomas Davis, Chief, J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Page 9

Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Maryland, Kathy M. Kinsey, Assistant Attorney General, G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Maine, Gerald D. Reid, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, James R. Milkey, William L. Pardee, and Frederick D. Augenstern, Assistant Attorneys General, Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office for the District of Columbia, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, Donna M. Murasky, Senior Litigation Counsel, Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Wisconsin, Thomas L. Dosch, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Vermont, Erick Titrud and Kevin O. Leske, Assistant Attorneys General, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New York, Peter Lehner, J. Jared Snyder, and Michael J. Myers, Assistant Attorneys General, Robert A. Reiley, Assistant Counsel, Attorney General's Office of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of New Hampshire, Maureen D. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Patrick C. Lynch, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Rhode Island, Tricia K. Jedele, Special Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Shane Stark, William M. Dillon, Kathrine Currie Pittard, David Schott, Steven M. Basha, Leslyn Syren, Robert N. Kwong, Barbara Baird, and Phillip M. Jay, were on the brief of Group II State and Local Government Intervenors in support of respondent.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office of the State of Florida, and Jonathan A. Glogau, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief of amicus curiae State of Florida supporting respondent.

C. Boyden Gray and Neil J. King were on the brief of amicus curiae Senator James M. Inhofe.

 Table of Contents
                 I. Background ................................................ 11
                 II. Industry Challenges ....................................... 18
                 A. Modification ........................................... 19
                 B. Interpretation of 1980 Rule in 2002 Preamble ........... 20
                 C. Source-Specific Allowable Emissions .................... 21
                 III. Baseline Emissions ........................................ 21
                 A. Statutory Interpretation ............................... 22
                 B. Environmental Impact ................................... 27
                 IV. Methodology and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
169 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...underlie PSD, and has upheld EPA interpretations of the PSD program that reflect a balancing of those goals. See, e.g., New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 27 (DC Cir.), rehearing en banc den. 431 F.3d 801 Congress was also keenly aware that the PSD analyses and controls that it was mandating had ......
  • Air programs: state authority delegations: Semi-annual agenda
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 24, 2006
    • April 24, 2006
    ...reconsideration and seeking comment on an additional issue regarding the potential impact of a recent judicial opinion, New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). This decision vacated the pollution control project (PCP) exclusion in the New Source (NSR) regulations (the exclusion allowe......
  • Federal Implementation Plans:
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 08, 2011
    • August 8, 2011
    ...EPA recognizes that, following the vacatur of the new source review (NSR) pollution control project exemption in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 40-41 (D.C. Cir. 2005), pollution control projects, including pollution control projects constructed to comply with this rule, have the potential to ......
  • Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, Civil Action No.: 11-1896 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 10, 2014
    ...List v. FEC, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25 n.6 (D.D.C. 2008), rev'd on other grounds, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also New York v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (finding waiver in petitioner's failure to raise argument in its opening brief). Accordingly, the Court wil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
86 cases
  • Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, Civil Action No.: 11-1896 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 10, 2014
    ...List v. FEC, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25 n.6 (D.D.C. 2008), rev'd on other grounds, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also New York v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (finding waiver in petitioner's failure to raise argument in its opening brief). Accordingly, the Court wil......
  • Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-cv-00119 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 18, 2020
    ...that "an agency's refusal to adopt its proposal is always a logical outgrowth of the proposal." Defs.’ MSJ at 67 (citing New York v. EPA , 413 F.3d 3, 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) and Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA , 211 F.3d 1280, 1299–1300 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ). To be sure, when an agency u......
  • Sierra Club v. Portland General Elec. Co., Civil No. 08-1136-HA.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • September 30, 2009
    ...attainment with applicable NAAQS and requires more stringent pollution reduction measures than the PSD program. See New York v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 12 (D.C.Cir. 2005); 42 U.S.C. §§ 3. The 1974 PSD regulations apply to fossil-fuel-fired plants with more than 1000 million British thermal un......
  • Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Civil Action No. 20-808 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 31, 2020
    ...from taking the proposed step.'" Idaho Conservation League, 930 F.3d at 508 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). 8. In its comments on the exclusion of Copaxone from FDA's Preliminary List of products to be transition......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Black Carbon
    • United States
    • Legal pathways to deep decarbonization in the United States Part VIII - Non-Carbon Dioxide Climate Pollutants
    • March 24, 2019
    ...pts. 51 and 52 (explaining the process for calculating whether pollutant emissions have increased); New York v. Environmental Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (upholding changes to regulations that exempt from “modiication” certain emissions increases from physical and operational ......
  • United States v. DTE Energy Co.: A Flawed Decision With Implications for the Future Enforceability of New Source Review
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-6, June 2015
    • June 1, 2015
    ...(2004) (de-scribing the history and providing an overview of the 2002 NSR Reform and its impacts). 63. See New York v. EPA ( New York I ), 413 F.3d 3, 10-11, 35 ELR 20135 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (upholding and striking down diferent portions of the 2002 reform rules); New York v. EPA ( New York II......
  • Preconstruction Permits: New Source Performance Standards and New Source Review
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...only by the D.C. 223. United States v. Duke Energy Corp. 411 F.3d 539, 35 ELR 20121 (4th Cir. 2005). 224. 40 C.F.R. §60.14(b). 225. 413 F.3d 3, 35 ELR 20135 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. denied (Apr. 30, 2007). 226. 411 F.3d 539, 35 ELR 20121 (4th Cir. 2005). 227. 70 Fed. Reg. 61081 (Oct. 20, 200......
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration: A Scalpel, Not an Axe
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...as NSR. NNSR is a better abbreviation for the nonattainment new source review program. 61. See New York v. Environmental Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 3, 35 ELR 20135 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Copyright © 2018 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.el......
  • 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