Sierra Club v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–1278 (PLF). |
| Parties | SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. Lisa P. JACKSON, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James S. Pew, Earthjustice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Eileen T. McDonough, U.S. DOJ–Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's three claims. Upon consideration of the parties' papers, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, will enter judgment for defendant on Claim 1 and Claim 2, and will enter judgment for plaintiff on Claim 3. As a result, the Court will declare unlawful the defendant's “Delay Notice,” 76 Fed.Reg. 28,662 (May 18, 2011), will vacate the Delay Notice, and will remand the Delay Notice to defendant for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.1
The Court previously has described the factual and procedural background of this case, see Sierra Club v. Jackson, 813 F.Supp.2d 149, 152–55 (D.D.C.2011), and therefore will limit its discussion accordingly.
In Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 01–1537, this Court ordered defendant, the Environmental Protection Agency, to promulgate long-overdue emission standards under the Clean Air Act by February 21, 2011. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 01–1537, 2011 WL 181097, at *14 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2011). In accordance with that order, on February 21, 2011, EPA signed two rules regulating emission standards: (1) the “Boiler Rule,” defined by EPA as a rule “to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants ... from industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters located at major sources of [hazardous air pollutant] emissions”; and (2) the “CISWI Rule,” defined by EPA as a rule to “regulate emissions of certain air pollutants from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units [.]” 76 Fed.Reg. 28,662, at 28,663 (May 18, 2011).
As EPA describes it, by 2014, the Boiler Rule will lead to significant annual health benefits; according to EPA's estimates, the rule will help avoid:
• 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
• 1,900,000 days when people must restrict their activities.
PMSJ, Ex. C, EPA Fact Sheet, Final Air Toxics Standards for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Source Facilities at 2–3. Similarly, according to EPA's estimates, by 2016, the CISWI Rule will help avoid:
• 700 cases of aggravated asthma, and
• 31,000 days when people must restrict their activities.
PMSJ, Ex. D, EPA Fact Sheet, Final Amendments to New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units at 2.
On March 21, 2011, EPA published the Boiler Rule and the CISWI Rule in the Federal Register and established an effective date of May 20, 2011 for each rule. See76 Fed.Reg. at 28,663. Also on March 21, 2011, EPA announced that it was initiating an administrative reconsideration process with respect to certain aspects of each rule, see id., a procedure provided for under the Clean Air Act. See42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B).
Shortly thereafter, multiple parties, including plaintiff Sierra Club, filed petitions for review of the Boiler Rule and the CISWI Rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court of appeals consolidated 16 petitions for review of the Boiler Rule into one proceeding, U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, No. 11–1108, and consolidated 17 petitions for review of the CISWI Rule into another proceeding, American Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, No. 11–1125. Those petitions for review present substantive challenges to the legal sufficiency of the Boiler Rule and the CISWI Rule under the Clean Air Act, a matter that both Sierra Club and EPA agree is reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of appeals. See42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1); see also Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F.Supp.2d 46, 60 (D.D.C.2006).2
While those petitions for review were pending in the court of appeals, on May 18, 2011, two days before the Boiler Rule and the CISWI Rule were to go into effect, EPA issued a notice, referred to by the agency as the “Delay Notice,” staying the effective date of both rules “until the proceedings for judicial review of these rules [in the court of appeals] are completed or the EPA completes its reconsideration of the rules, whichever is earlier[.]” 76 Fed.Reg. at 28,664. In the Delay Notice, EPA made explicit that it was staying the effective date of these two rules “pursuant to the APA[, that is, the Administrative Procedure Act], rather than ... the Clean Air Act.” Id. at 28,663. Specifically, EPA stated that it was acting pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 of the APA, rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. Id.
Sierra Club filed this lawsuit on July 14, 2011 to challenge the validity of EPA's Delay Notice. See generally Compl. In its complaint, Sierra Club asserts that it has a cause of action against EPA under the APA, and that this Court has jurisdiction to review the Delay Notice under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Compl. ¶ 8. Sierra Club contends that the Delay Notice is unlawful for three independent reasons: (1) EPA failed to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before issuing the Delay Notice, id. ¶ ¶ 33–36; (2) EPA lacked the authority to issue the Delay Notice, id. ¶¶ 37–43; and (3) EPA failed to provide adequate justification for the Delay Notice. Id. ¶¶ 44–47. In its request for relief, Sierra Club asks that the Court declare the Delay Notice unlawful and that the Court vacate it. Id. at 10.
The parties simultaneously briefed EPA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 27, 2011, the Court denied EPA's motion to dismiss, concluding that “[b]ecause EPA's Delay Notice was issued under the APA, it is subject to judicial review in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Sierra Club v. Jackson, 813 F.Supp.2d at 162. Subsequently, in reviewing the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court found insufficient the parties' briefing on Sierra Club's first claim—that EPA failed to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before issuing the Delay Notice—and the Court therefore ordered supplemental briefing. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 11–1278, 833 F.Supp.2d 9, 2011 WL 4852208, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2011). That supplemental briefing has been completed, and the parties'cross-motions for summary judgment are ripe for decision.
In the parties' supplemental briefing, EPA again argued that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court therefore first will address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. It concludes that nothing in the parties' supplemental briefing requires the Court to revisit its determination that it has jurisdiction over Sierra Club's complaint. The Court then will address the merits of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.3
On September 27, 2011, the Court denied EPA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, 813 F.Supp.2d at 152–53. As the Court stated, it was unclear from EPA's papers whether the agency was asserting “(1) that this Court actually lacks jurisdiction, or (2) that this Court has jurisdiction, but should defer to the ancillary jurisdiction of the court of appeals.” Id. at 155. “When pressed to clarify EPA's position during oral argument [on the motion to dismiss], counsel for EPA relied primarily on the agency's ancillary jurisdiction argument, but ultimately also asserted that the Clean Air Act divests this Court of jurisdiction over Sierra Club's complaint.” Id.
The Court disagreed with EPA, concluding:
EPA acted, by its own admission, under the [APA] in issuing the Delay Notice, rather than under the Clean Air Act. It did so because the APA's administrative stay provision gave EPA more flexibility than the Clean Air Act, the latter's stay provision being expressly limited to a maximum of three months, a time that has since passed in this case. But in its motion to dismiss, EPA asks this Court to conclude that the agency in fact acted under the Clean Air Act—the very Act that the agency expressly denied invoking in issuing the Delay Notice ... [T]he Court ... holds that the Delay Notice was issued under the APA, not the Clean Air Act. Because EPA's Delay Notice was issued under the APA, it is subject to judicial review in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Sierra Club v. Jackson, 813 F.Supp.2d at 162. Because EPA specifically invoked the APA to avoid the three-month limitation on stays issued under the Clean Air Act, the agency “must suffer the jurisdictional consequences of that decision.” Id. at 158.
In reviewing the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court discovered an issue that neither side raised at the motion to dismiss stage that ultimately could relate to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore ordered supplemental briefing in a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on October 13, 2011. See Sierra...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
- Bauer v. Devos, Civil Action No. 17-1330 (RDM)
- Gomez v. Trump
- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Regan
-
CHAPTER 5 EPA'S AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING RULES
...(June 16, 2017) (Methane Rule). [12] See NRDC v. Reilly, 976 F.2d at 40. [13] APA § 705 [ 5 U.S.C. § 705]. [14] Sierra Club v. Jackson, 833 F.Supp.2d 11 (D.D.C. 2012). [15] 76 Fed. Reg. 28662 (May 18, 2011). [16] Id. at 28664. [17] Sierra Club v. Jackson, 833 F.Supp.2d at 26- 27. [18] Sierr......