U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
| Decision Date | 29 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-1125,13-1098,13-1124,11-1180,11-1134,13-1087,13-1091,11-1208,11-1172,13-1119,11-1181,13-1123,11-1144,13-1121,11-1145,11-1161,13-1096,13-1111,11-1183,No. 11-1108,13-1127,13-1118,11-1159,11-1165,11-1174,13-1097,C/w 11-1124,11-1154,11-1155,13-1107,13-1114,No. 11-1141,13-1105,11-1171,C/w 11-1140,11-1207,13-1103,C/w 11-1182,13-1100,13-1099,13-1116,11-1142,13-1113,13-1086,13-1092,13-1120,11-1188,11-1173,11-1108,11-1125,11-1141 |
| Citation | 830 F.3d 579 |
| Parties | United States Sugar Corporation, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent American Chemistry Council, et al., Intervenors. American Forest & Paper Association, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent American Chemistry Council, et al., Intervenors. American Chemistry Council, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent American Forest & Paper Association, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
William L. Wehrum Jr., David M. Friedland, Washington, DC, and Douglas A. McWilliams, Cleveland, OH, argued the causes for Industry Petitioners. With them on the briefs were Allen A. Kacenjar, Katy M. Franz, Cleveland, OH, Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, Peter H. Wyckoff, Claudia M. O'Brien, Stacey L. VanBelleghem, Eli Hopson, Jane C. Luxton, Lauren E. Freeman, Washington, DC, Elizabeth L. Horner, William F. Lane, Alan H. McConnell, Raleigh, NC, Timothy S. Bishop, Kevin G. Desharnais, Chad M. Clamage, Chicago, IL, Ronald A. Shipley, Arlington, VA, Quentin Riegel, Linda E. Kelly, and Jeffrey A. Knight, Washington, DC. Rachel Brand, Leslie A. Hulse, Harry M. Ng, Washington, DC, Scott J. Stone, San Francisco, CA, John P. Wagner, Watsonville, CA, and Lee B. Zeugin entered appearances.
James S. Pew, Wilton, CT, and Sanjay Narayan, New York, NY, were on the briefs for Environmental Petitioners. Neil Gormley entered an appearance.
Perry M. Rosen and Norman L. Rave, Jr., Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent. With them on the brief was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, and Norman L. Rave, Jr., Attorney. Sam Hirsch and Madeline P. Fleisher, Attorneys, entered appearances.
James S. Pew, Wilton, CT, and Neil Gormley argued the causes for Environmental Respondent-Intervenors. With them on the briefs was Sanjay Narayan, New York, NY.
William L. Wehrum, Quentin Riegel, Linda E. Kelly, Patrick Forrest, Washington, DC, Douglas A. McWilliams, Cleveland, OH, Peter H. Wyckoff, Jeffrey A. Knight, Claudia M. O'Brien, Stacey L. VanBelleghem, Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, David M. Friedland, Washington, DC, William F. Lane, Alan H. McConnell, Raleigh, NC, Ronald A. Shipley, Arlington, VA, Carol F. McCabe, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Suzanne Ilene Schiller, Michael Dillon, Charles Howland Knauss , Washington, DC, Shannon S. Broome, San Francisco, CA, Timothy S. Bishop, Kevin G. Desharnais, Chad M. Clamage, Chicago, IL, Lauren E. Freeman, Washington, DC, Elizabeth L. Horner, Larry B. Alexander, and Leslie A. Hulse, Washington, DC, were on the brief for In dustry Intervenor-Responde nts. Allen A. Kacenjar Jr., Cleveland, OH, Rachel L. Brand, Harry M. Ng, Washington, DC, Scott J. Stone, San Francisco, CA, John P. Wagner, Watsonville, CA, and Lee B. Zeugin entered appearances.
William L. Wehrum, Washington, DC, Douglas A. McWilliams, Cleveland, OH, and Jason T. Morgan, Seattle, WA, argued the causes for Industry Petitioners. On the briefs were Richard G. Stoll, Leslie A. Hulse, Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, Peter H. Wyckoff, Jeffrey A. Knight, David M. Friedland, Jessalee Landfried, Michael B. Wigmore, Washington, DC, Ronald A. Shipley, Arlington, VA, Chet M. Thompson, Linda E. Kelly, Quentin Riegel, Washington, DC, William F. Lane, Alan H. McConnell, Raleigh, NC, Carol F. McCabe, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Suzanne Ilene Schiller, and Michael Dillon. David Y. Chung, Rachel L. Brand, Julia L. German, Jeffrey W. Leppo, Seattle, WA, and Jane C. Luxton, Washington, DC, entered appearances.
Neil Gormley and James S. Pew, Wilton, CT, argued the causes and filed the briefs for Environmental Petitioners.
Perry M. Rosen and Norman L. Rave, Jr., Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent. With them on the brief was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General. Madeline P. Fleisher, Attorney, entered an appearance.
James S. Pew, Wilton, CT, and Neil Gormley argued the causes and filed the briefs for Environmental Respondent-Intervenors.
David M. Friedland and William L. Wehrum, Washington, DC, argued the causes for Industry Intervenor-Respondents. With them on the briefs were Jessalee Landfried, Leslie A. Hulse, Richard G. Stoll, Washington, DC, Ronald A. Shipley, Arlington, VA, William F. Lane, Alan H. McConnell, Raleigh, NC, James T. Morgan, Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, Jeffrey A. Knight, Washington, DC, Shannon S. Broome, San Francisco, CA, Carol McCabe, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Suzanne Ilene Schiller, Michael Dillon, Linda E. Kelly, Quentin Riegel, and Charles H. Knauss, Washington, D C. Scott J. Stone, San Francisco, CA, Lori A. Rubin, W ashington, DC, a nd Jeffrey W. Leppo, Seattle, WA, entered appearances.
William L. Wehrum and David M. Friedland, Washington, DC, argued the causes for Industry Petitioners. On the briefs were Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, Jeffrey A. Knight, Quentin Riegel, and Leslie A. Hulse, Washington, DC. Harry M. Ng, Washington, DC, Scott J. Stone, San Francisco, CA, and John P. Wagner, Watsonville, CA, entered appearances.
Neil Gormley argued the cause for Environmental Petitioners. With him on the briefs was James S. Pew, Wilton, CT.
Perry M. Rosen and Norman L. Rave, Jr., Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent. With them on the brief was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General. Madeline P. Fleisher, Attorney, entered an appearance.
David M. Friedland and William L. Wehrum, Washington, DC, argued the causes for Industry Intervenor-Respondents. With them on the briefs were Lisa Marie Jaeger, Sandra Y. Snyder, Jeffrey A. Knight, William F. Pedersen, Pamela A. Lacey, William F. Lane, Linda E. Kelly, Quentin Riegel, James W. Conrad, Jr., and Leslie A. Hulse. Harry M. Ng, Washington, DC, Scott J. Stone, San Francisco, CA, John P. Wagner, Watsonville, CA, and Nidhi J. Thakar entered appearances.
James S. Pew, Wilton, CT, and Neil Gormley were on the brief for Environmental Respondent-Intervenors.
Before: Henderson, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, we address approximately thirty challenges to three regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency): (1) the “Major Boilers Rule,”1 (2) the “Area Boilers Rule,”2 and (3) the “Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) Rule.”3 Collectively, these rules—all promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq .
—set emissions limits on certain combustion machinery known to release hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Roughly one-half of the challenges are advanced by a group of municipal-electric organizations, industrial-trade associations, oil-and-gas industry representatives, and other entities that own and operate boilers, process heaters, and incinerators (Industry Petitioners). The other one-half are pressed by organizations interested in safeguarding the environment (Environmental Petitioners).
The three rules at issue address a common phenomenon: when combustion occurs, emissions result. The emissions include numerous materials, some of which pose risks to the environment in general and to human health in particular. Because combustion is an inevitable occurrence in the machinery that helps to power modern society, the Congress has authorized the EPA to provide for a regulatory framework that minimizes the deleterious effects of the incineration industry while simultaneously allowing it to operate.
In 2013, the EPA finalized its efforts to do so for discrete types of combustion machinery: boilers, process heaters, and incinerators. Two of the three rules at issue—the Major Boilers Rule and the Area Boilers Rule—govern boilers and process heaters. The former are enclosed devices that use a controlled flame to heat water and convert it into steam or hot water. 40 C.F.R. § 63.11237
. The latter are also enclosed devices that use a controlled flame but, instead of generating steam, they indirectly heat a “process material,” whether liquid, gas, or solid, or a “heat transfer material” like glycol or a mixture of glycol and water. Id. For simplicity, our use of “boilers” covers both machinery types.
The two boiler-specific rules further divide the machinery into three categories: industrial, commercial, and institutional. See 2011 Area Boilers Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,557
. Industrial boilers are used for manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, and other similar operations. See id. Commercial boilers are used by shopping malls, laundromats, apartment complexes, restaurants, and hotels. See id. And institutional boilers include those used by, e.g. , medical centers, schools, churches, prisons, and courthouses. See id. Collectively, over 200,000 boilers at over 100,000 separate facilities must comply with the standards set out in the Major Boilers Rule or the Area Boilers Rule.
The third rule that we address—the CISWI Rule—governs combustion machinery known as “solid waste incineration unit[s].” 42 U.S.C. § 7429
. The Act defines an incinerator as a “distinct operating unit of any facility” that burns solid waste from either commercial establishments, industrial establishments, or the general public. Id. § 7429(g)(1). An incinerator subjects “waste material” to “high temperatures until it is reduced to ash.” Incinerator, New Oxford American Dictionary 853 (2d ed. 2005). Incinerators fall into different subcategories and, in the past, the EPA has issued rules governing many of them, including, e.g. , municipal solid-waste incinerators, medical-waste...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Columbus v. Cochran
...a reasoned explanation for discounting the importance of the facts that it had previously relied upon." U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency , 830 F.3d 579, 626 (D.C. Cir. 2016). HHS's vague assertion that "other tools" would be sufficient to allow consumers to select an adequate plan whe......
-
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
..." Eagle Pharms., Inc. v. Azar , 952 F.3d 323, 330 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA , 830 F.3d 579, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam)). If the statute "is susceptible of ‘only [one] possible interpretation,’ " Petit v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. , 675 F.3d ......
-
Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 15-1219
...an important aspect of the problem is one of the hallmarks of arbitrary and capricious reasoning. See United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA , 830 F.3d 579, 606 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 ......
-
Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Zinke
...court becomes whether the Service's interpretation is "based on a permissible construction of the statute." United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA , 830 F.3d 579, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842–843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 ). Generally, a " ‘reasonable’ explanation of how an agenc......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
...or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.” Id. § 7411 (a)(3). 172. See id. § 7412(d)(5); U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 593–94 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1) (“The [EPA] may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category ......
-
Environmental Crimes
...Standards (“NSPS”) 192 for new 193 or modified 194 stationary sources. 195 185. See id. § 7412(d)(5); U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 593–94 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1) (“The [EPA] may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or ......
-
Environmental Crimes
...source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source.” Id. § 7412(a)(2). 179. See id. § 7412(d)(5); U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 593–94 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1) (“The [EPA] may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a catego......
-
POLLUTING THE EPA'S LONG TRADITION OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.
...harm than good. Id. (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). (63.) Id. at 2708-09. (64.) Id. at 2711. (65.) E.g., U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 625-26 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ("Section 7412(d) (4)'s text does not foreclose the Agency from considering co-benefits and doing so is consistent w......