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

Petitioners challenged the EPA's issuance of a memorandum entitled, "Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule." The court dismissed the petition for review because petitioners failed to show that they suffered injury that is imminent or certain as a result of the Memorandum. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners' challenges.View "Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

FERC issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Tennessee Gas, authorizing it to build and operate the Northeast Project. Riverkeeper sought review of FERC's approval of the Northeast Project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 431-4370h. The court held that in conducting its environmental review of the Northeast Project without considering the other connected, closely related, and interdependent projects on the Eastern Leg, FERC impermissibly segmented the environmental review in violation of NEPA. The court also found that FERC's environmental assessment was deficient in its failure to include any meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the upgrade projects. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded.View "Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the EPA's Summit Directive, which states that "EPA may no longer consider interrelatedness in determining adjacency when making source determination decisions in its title V or NSR permitting decisions in areas under the jurisdiction of the [Sixth] Circuit." The court granted the petition for review, concluding that the Summit Directive creates a standard that gives facilities located in the Sixth Circuit a competitive advantage and, therefore, causes competitive injury to petitioner's members located outside the Sixth Circuit; the Directive is a final agency action; and petitioners' claim is ripe for review. On the merits, the court held that the Summit Directive is plainly contrary to EPA's own regulations. Accordingly, the court vacated the Summit Directive.View "Nat'l Env. Dev. Assoc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the EPA's decision in 2012 that it needed further studies before it could set a new, joint, "secondary" national ambient air quality standard for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulphur, and other related compounds found in the ambient air and considered precursors of acid deposits on the land and in the waters of the continental United States. At issue was whether EPA's decision to defer adopting a new standard at this time, pending further scientific study, violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(1). The court concluded that, because the Act requires a reasoned judgment, and because EPA found it could not form one, EPA's explanation conformed to the authorizing statute. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the Commission's approval of a proposal for the construction of a natural gas compressor station in the Town of Minisink, New York. Petitioners argued, among other things, that the Commission's approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious, particularly given the existence of a nearby alternative site (the Wagoner Alternative) they insist is better than the Minisink locale. The court concluded that the Commission's consideration of the Wagoner Alternative falls within the bounds of its discretion and the court had no basis to upset the Commission's application of its Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, authority on this point; the court was satisfied that the Commission properly considered cumulative impacts of the Minisink Project; the court reject petitioners' argument that the Minisink Project violates the siting guidelines; and the court rejected petitioners' claims of procedural errors. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Minisink Residents for Enviro., et al. v. FERC" on Justia Law

In 1998, the United States brought enforcement actions in district court against seven major engine manufacturers, alleging that they had been using "defeat devices" to meet EPA standards for emissions of oxides of nitrogen. The parties settled and most of the manufacturers agreed to be bound by consent decrees. The manufacturers also agreed to comply with certain EPA emissions standards earlier than EPA regulations otherwise required. Volvo Powertrain now argues that the consent decree has no application to the Volvo Penta engines. The court agreed with the district court that the consent decree applied to the Volvo Penta engines manufactured at the Volvo Powertrain plant where the court read the terms of the consent decree to impose liability on Volvo Powertrain for its affiliate's engines manufactured at its facility. The court also concluded that the district court committed no abuse of discretion when it ordered Volvo Powertrain to pay approximately $72 million as a remedy for the violations of the decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Volvo Powertrain Corp." on Justia Law

Guardians and other environmental groups petitioned the EPA to add coal mines to the regulated list of statutory source categories under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). EPA denied the petition, explaining that it must prioritize its actions in light of limited resources and ongoing budget uncertainties. The court found that the EPA's action easily passed muster under the "extremely limited" and "highly deferential" standard that governed the court's review of an agency's denial of a rulemaking petition. The reasons given were consistent with the agency's delegated authority and supported by the record. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA's Final Rule regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), 7607(d)(9). The court concluded that the EPA did not fail to request comment on whether to revise the NAAQS where the preamble to the EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requested comments on "all issues" related to the agency's proposal to lower the level of the particulate matter NAAQS; the EPA offered reasoned explanations for how it approached and weighed the evidence, and why the scientific evidence supported revision of the NAAQS; and the court rejected petitioners' contention that the EPA did not respond when petitioners' comments cited certain studies that supported retention of the existing particulate matter NAAQS because the EPA acted within its discretion by addressing the more significant comments. The court also concluded that the EPA fulfilled its obligation to reasonably explain its decision not to employ spatial averaging. The court rejected petitioners' challenge to the EPA's new requirement that States place monitors near heavily trafficked roads in large metropolitan areas where the statutory scheme granted the EPA substantial discretion and the EPA's decision and explanation were at least reasonable. Finally, the court rejected petitioners' argument that the EPA should not have issued, or at least should not require compliance with, the 2013 NAAQS without first providing States and regulated certain implementation guidance. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) issued under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o). The court held that Monroe Energy had Article III standing to challenge the Final Rule. On the merits, the court concluded that, in the absence of any express or implied statutory directive to consider particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded that it enjoyed broad discretion regarding whether and in what circumstances to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes under the cellulosic biofuel waiver provision. The court rejected Monroe Energy's arguments regarding vacatur of the Final Rule because it was untimely issued. EPA's decision to preserve the 2013 fuel standards while extending the compliance deadline to June 30, 2014 was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law

After the Forest Service denied Ark's Emergency Petition seeking "roadless" designation for roughly 1,000 acres on Burnt Mountain and suspension of the Aspen Skiing Company's authorization to cut trees on that land, Ark filed suit against the Service in district court. The district court granted summary judgment to the Service and denied reconsideration. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that Ark had Article III standing to challenge the Service's final action denying the Emergency Petition. On the merits, the court concluded that the Service's denial of the Emergency Petition was not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law, and Ark failed to show an abuse of discretion on reconsideration. View "Ark Initiative, et al. v. Tidwell, et al." on Justia Law