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

Alaska filed suit challenging the Forest Service's Roadless Rule in 2011. In 2001, the Forest Service adopted the Rule, which prohibited road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting on millions of acres of national forest lands, including national forest land in Alaska. In 2005, the Forest Service repealed the Rule, but, in 2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered reinstatement of the Rule. The court concluded that when the Rule was reinstated in 2006 after its repeal in 2005, a new right of action accrued. Under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), Alaska had six years from the time of the Rule's reinstatement in 2006 to file a lawsuit challenging the rule. Therefore, Alaska's suit is timely because it filed in 2011. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Alaska's complaint and remanded for further consideration. View "State of Alaska v. Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek vacatur of OSHA's Final Rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard requiring employers across industries to develop a program for classifying the dangers of workplace chemicals and conveying those dangers to their employees. Petitioners, businesses that handle and process grain and other agricultural products, and others, seek vacatur of the Final Rule as it applies to combustible dust. The court concluded that petitioners had express notice that combustible dust, however labeled, would be subject to the relevant requirements of the Final Rule; there was substantial evidence and an adequate explanation to support OSHA's decision to incorporate an interim definition of "combustible dust" and guidance until a more precise definitions is implemented in another rulemaking; petitioners' facial vagueness challenge is ripe for review; and on the merits, however, the vagueness claim fails because the Final Rule satisfies due process where the term "combustible dust" is clear enough to provide fair warning of enforcement, and OSHA has provided additional guidance on how the revised Hazard Communication Standard will be enforced. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Nat'l Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA" on Justia Law

The States of West Virginia and Kentucky, along with coal mining companies and trade associations, challenged EPA and Corps' Enhanced Coordination Process memorandum, which applied to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications that were stalled because of litigation, and the EPA's Final Guidance. The court concluded that EPA and the Corps acted within their statutory authority when they adopted the Enhanced Coordination Process. Under the court's precedents, the Final Guidance is not a final action reviewable by the courts at this time. If and when an applicant is denied a permit, the applicant at that time may challenge the denial of the permit as unlawful. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanded with directs to grant judgment for the Government on the Enhanced Coordination Process claim and to dismiss plaintiffs' challenge to the Final Guidance.View "National Mining Assoc., et al. v. Jackson, et al." on Justia Law

CTS petitioned for review of the EPA's decision to add to the National Priorities List, which identifies those hazardous-waste sites considered to be the foremost candidates for environmental cleanup, a site centered around property formerly owned by the company. Determining that CTS has constitutional standing, the court concluded that the EPA did not fail to examine the relevant data or to articulate a rational explanation for its actions; the EPA's determination that a hydraulic connection existed between the CTS property and the contaminated Oaks Subdivision wells was reasonable; and CTS's reliance on extra-record evidence relating to isotope data was procedurally foreclosed. The court denied the petition for review because each of CTS's objections was without merit, forfeited, or impermissibly based on extra-record evidence.View "CTS Corp. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

The city of Jersey City and a coalition of environmental groups filed separate petitions challenging FERC's order granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction of a natural gas pipeline connecting New York and New Jersey. The court concluded that it could not consider the merits of the petitions where the environmental petitioners lacked Article III standing as an association; the court did not have original jurisdiction over claims arising from the Budget Act, Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and the court rejected the City's remaining standing claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.View "NO Gas Pipeline v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the EPA's rule exempting from regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., certain hazardous residuals left over from the petroleum refining process (the Gasification Exclusion Rule). The court held that petitioners had standing; their petitions for review were timely; and the Gasification Exclusion Rule violates the plain statutory text of section 6924(q). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review in No. 08-1145 and granted the petitions for review Nos. 08-1144 and 12-1295. The court vacated the Gasification Exclusion Rule.View "Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a portion of a 1998 EPA rule creating a "Comparable Fuels Exclusion" from regulation under section 3004(q) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6924(q). The court concluded that Environmental Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating standing on behalf of their members. The court concluded that the Exclusion is inconsistent with the plain language of section 6924(q), which requires that EPA establish standards applicable to all fuel derived hazardous waste. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated the Exclusion. However, Environmental Technology Council lacked a cause of action and the court denied its petition for review. View "NRDC and Sierra Club v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

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