Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners challenge the EPA's 2012 regulation revising Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d), standards for emissions of hexavalent chromium. The new rule imposes more stringent emissions limitations than its predecessor and mandates the phase-out of a category of fume suppressants containing the toxic compound perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). The court rejected, as contrary to the court's precedent, environmental petitioners' contention that EPA was required to calculate a new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor when it revised emissions standards pursuant to its technology review under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA; the court deferred to EPA’s methodology as well as its ultimate balancing decisions where it took into account the statutorily required considerations, inter alia, cost, emissions reductions, and health risk, as well as provided a transparent, reasoned explanation of its decision; the court was satisfied with the EPA's data-gathering and analysis and therefore, rejected the Association's argument that EPA unreasonably determined in its technology review that “developments” had occurred after the original rulemaking that required revision of the existing emissions standards; it suffices for EPA to show that non-PFOS based suppressants are as effective at controlling surface tension as PFOS-based suppressants; and EPA's risk review under section 112(f)(2) was reasonable. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review and upheld the rule. View "Nat'l Assoc. for Surface Finishing v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners, several biofuel producers and others, want EPA to approve E30, which is a fuel that contains about 30% ethanol, for use as a test fuel. EPA has adopted regulations that require vehicle manufacturers to test the emissions of new vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers must conduct emissions testing using a “test fuel” that must be a fuel that is “commercially available.” As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioners have Article III standing to maintain their suit; petitioners are within the zone of interests protected by the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1); petitioners' challenge is timely; and petitioners' suit is ripe. On the merits, the court concluded that it is entirely commonsensical and reasonable for EPA to require vehicle manufacturers to use the same fuels in emissions testing that vehicles will use out on the road. Moreover, the regulation is rooted in (if not compelled by) the statute, which says that EPA must ensure that “vehicles are tested under circumstances which reflect the actual current driving conditions under which motor vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel.” Because the “commercially available” requirement is not arbitrary and capricious, the court denied the petition for review. View "Energy Future Coalition v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged EPA’s anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Petitioners argue that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), does not grant EPA authority to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants and therefore, petitioners ask the court to enjoin EPA from issuing a final rule limiting those carbon dioxide emissions. The court concluded that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), does not authorize a court to circumvent finality principles in order to review proposed agency rules; EPA's public statements about its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions does not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review; and the court rejected petitioners' challenge of a 2011 settlement agreement that EPA reached with several other states and environmental groups. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition where the court does not have authority to review proposed agency rules. View "In Re: Murray Energy Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of EPA's final rule, which determined that supercritical carbon dioxide injected into Class VI underground wells for purposes of geologic sequestration is “solid waste” within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). The court dismissed the petitions for review because petitioners lacked Article III standing. In this case, neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III; Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing; and American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing. View "Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

WRC, operator of an oil refinery, seeks review of EPA's denial of its petition for an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuels program. The court rejected WRC’s various challenges other than those identifying two mathematical errors in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data. EPA concedes those errors. Because the conceded errors significantly alter important figures in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data, the court cannot conclude with sufficient certainty that the agency would have made the same decision absent its errors.Therefore, the court vacated EPA’s decision and remanded to allow the agency to reevaluate WRC’s petition using the correct figures. View "Hermes Consol. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA’s determination that certain geographic areas are, or are not, in “attainment” with the EPA’s ground-level ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The court concluded that the EPA’s final designations of Delaware and Connecticut counties are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; EPA's designation of Uinta Basin, Utah as "unclassifiable" is rational and in accordance with the CAA; EPA's refusal to use uncertified 2011 air-quality data during the designation process is rational and in accordance with the CAA; the EPA's use of 2008 to 2010 data to classify the counties within the Memphis, Tennessee area is rational and in accordance with the CAA; and the court rejected the remaining challenges. Accordingly, the court denied the consolidated petitions. View "MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners, PVC manufacturers, challenged EPA's 2012 rule setting first-time-ever limits on the emission of most hazardous air pollutants from PVC productions. Petitioners raised many of their objections for the first time in petitions for reconsideration with EPA that are awaiting resolution. The court concluded that it was precluded from reviewing these objections under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412. In regards to petitioners' objections that are ready for review, the court held that EPA acted reasonably and in accordance with the CAA where EPA’s PVC-combined process vent limits do not conflict with other emissions limits, and EPA’s decision not to subcategorize process vents on the basis of their emissions control technology was reasonable; EPA’s bypass opening requirements are not arbitrary and capricious, and its requirement that PVC manufacturers install monitoring equipment on pressure relief devices is not irrational; and petitioners’ argument that some of EPA’s bypass regulations are unlawful beyond-the-floor MACT requirements stems from misapprehension of the CAA and is without merit. Therefore, the court denied the petition View "Mexichem Specialty Resins v. EPA" on Justia Law

Appellants, four associations involved in building and developing land, challenged consent decrees that require the Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing, rejecting their claims of procedural injuries based on loss of opportunity to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage, withdrawal of the warranted-but-precluded classification, and acceleration of final listing determinations. Appellants failed to allege a cognizable harm and appellants' members cannot show injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Delaware and others petitioned for review of EPA's final rule governing use of certain kinds of power generators known as Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ("backup generators" or "emergency engines"). The court held that Delaware lacks standing to challenge the exemption from emissions controls for backup generators in low-density areas under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412; EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously under Section 111 of the Act when it modified the National Emissions Standards and the Performance Standards to allow backup generators to operate without emissions controls for up to 100 hours per year as part of an emergency demand-response program; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded as to those portions of the challenged rule. View "DE Dept. of Natural Res. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Citizens of Myersville, in Frederick County, Maryland, oppose the construction of a natural gas facility called a compressor station in their town as part of a larger expansion of natural gas facilities in the northeastern United States proposed by Dominion, a regional natural gas company. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, over the objections of the citizens, conditionally approved it. Dominion fulfilled the Commission’s conditions, including obtaining a Clean Air Act permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Dominion built the station, and it has been operating for approximately six months. The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting arguments that the Commission lacked substantial evidence to conclude that there was a public need for the project; that the Commission unlawfully interfered with Maryland’s rights under the Clean Air Act; that environmental review of the project, including its consideration of potential alternatives, was inadequate; and that the Commission unlawfully withheld hydraulic flow diagrams from them in violation of their due process rights. View "Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law