Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01423/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Communities for a Better Environment
Petitioner
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Sierra Club
Intervenor for Petitioner
WildEarth Guardians
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 26, 2013 Decided April 11, 2014 

No. 11-1423 

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND WILDEARTH 

GUARDIANS, 

PETITIONERS

v. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

RESPONDENT

SIERRA CLUB, 

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review of a Rule of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Nicholas J. Lopez, Student Counsel, argued the cause for 

petitioners and intervenor. On the briefs was Michael Ray 

Harris. Kelly D. Davis, Kevin J. Lynch, and Shannon Love, 

Student Counsel, entered appearances. 

Andrew J. Doyle, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was 

David P.W. Orlin, Attorney, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 1 of 11
2 

Before: BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Carbon monoxide is an 

odorless, colorless gas that can be produced by human 

activity, mainly by operation of motor vehicles. Carbon 

monoxide can cause adverse health effects, particularly for 

people with pre-existing health problems. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must establish primary 

and secondary national air quality standards to regulate the 

levels of six common air pollutants, including carbon 

monoxide. The primary standards must be set at a level 

“requisite to protect the public health,” which encompasses 

human health. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). The secondary 

standards must be set at a level “requisite to protect the public 

welfare,” which is defined in the statute to encompass the 

welfare of animals, the environment, and climate, among 

other things. Id. §§ 7409(b)(2), 7602(h). Once EPA 

identifies the proper levels for the standards, States administer 

programs for reduction in emissions of pollutants. See id.

§ 7410. 

The primary standards for carbon monoxide have 

remained the same since 1971. There has not been a 

secondary standard for carbon monoxide since EPA revoked a 

secondary standard in 1985. In 2007, EPA began reviewing 

whether to alter the current primary standards and whether to 

adopt a secondary standard. In 2011, EPA decided to keep 

things as they were: to retain the same primary standards and 

to continue without a secondary standard. See Review of 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 2 of 11
3 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon 

Monoxide, 76 Fed. Reg. 54,294 (Aug. 31, 2011). 

State and local governments and industry groups agreed 

with EPA’s decision. But three non-profit environmental and 

wildlife organizations – Communities for a Better 

Environment, WildEarth Guardians, and Sierra Club – have 

objected. Petitioners argue that EPA’s decisions concerning 

both the primary and secondary standards for carbon 

monoxide were arbitrary and capricious. 

We conclude that EPA acted reasonably in retaining the 

same primary standards for carbon monoxide, and that 

petitioners lack Article III standing to challenge EPA’s 

decision not to set a secondary standard for carbon monoxide. 

I 

Under Sections 108 and 109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

EPA must set National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

commonly known as NAAQS, for six common air pollutants: 

carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle 

pollution, and sulfur dioxide. See 42 U.S.C. § 7408. For each 

pollutant, EPA identifies primary ambient air quality 

standards that are “requisite” to protect the public health. Id.

§ 7409(b)(1). Specifically, the EPA Administrator must 

“identify the maximum airborne concentration of a pollutant 

that the public health can tolerate, decrease the concentration 

to provide an ‘adequate’ margin of safety, and set the standard 

at that level.” Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 

Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001). At least every five years, 

EPA must reevaluate the standards and, if appropriate, revise 

them. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d). 

EPA must also promulgate secondary standards 

“requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 3 of 11
4 

anticipated adverse effects” of those six pollutants in the 

ambient air. Id. § 7409(b)(2) (emphasis added). An adverse 

effect on public welfare includes adverse effects on “soils, 

water, crops, vegetation, . . . animals, wildlife, weather, 

visibility, and climate,” among other things. Id. § 7602(h). 

Since 1971, the primary standards for carbon monoxide 

have remained at an eight-hour average of 9 parts per million 

and a one-hour average of 35 parts per million, neither to be 

exceeded more than once per year. See Review of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide, 76 Fed. 

Reg. 54,294, 54,295 (Aug. 31, 2011). In 2007, EPA began its 

five-year review of those standards, as required by statute. Id. 

at 54,296. As part of that review, EPA prepared an Integrated 

Science Assessment consolidating relevant data on carbon 

monoxide’s effects. See id. In 2011, EPA determined that the 

current levels of the primary standards provide an “adequate 

margin of safety” under the statute. Id. at 54,308.

As to the secondary standard, since 1985 EPA has found 

that a secondary standard for carbon monoxide was not 

needed to protect the public welfare. Id. at 54,296. EPA’s 

five-year review of that standard focused on carbon 

monoxide’s effect on climate, the only element of public 

welfare known to be affected by carbon monoxide. Id. at 

54,309. In 2011, EPA concluded that the connection between 

carbon monoxide and climate change was tenuous. Id. at 

54,308. As a result, EPA could not determine whether any 

secondary standard would reduce climate change. Id. at 

54,309-10. 

EPA published its conclusions as a Proposed Rule and 

sought comments. During the notice-and-comment period, 

petitioners argued that the primary standards were inadequate 

to protect the public health and would cause adverse health 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 4 of 11
5 

effects on some of their members. Petitioners also challenged 

the lack of a secondary standard, contending that there was a 

causal connection between carbon monoxide and climate 

change and that EPA had to establish a secondary standard to 

help reduce or prevent climate change. EPA disagreed, 

incorporating the reasons given in the Proposed Rule into a 

Final Rule. Id. at 54,297. 

Petitioners now seek review of EPA’s decision (i) to 

retain the primary standards for carbon monoxide and (ii) to 

continue without a secondary standard for carbon monoxide. 

II 

Petitioners contend that EPA’s decision to retain the 

same primary standards for carbon monoxide was arbitrary 

and capricious. 

The arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential; it 

requires that agency action simply be “reasonable and 

reasonably explained.” National Telephone Cooperative 

Association v. FCC, 563 F.3d 536, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2009). As a 

general matter, we grant EPA significant deference in setting 

the NAAQS. See Mississippi v. EPA, slip op. at 9-10 (D.C. 

Cir. Dec. 11, 2013); Lead Industries Association, Inc. v. EPA, 

647 F.2d 1130, 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“Congress has 

entrusted the Agency with the responsibility for making these 

scientific and other judgments, and we must respect both 

Congress’ decision and the Agency’s ability to rely on the 

expertise that it develops.”). We also “give an extreme degree 

of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data 

within its technical expertise.” City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 

F.3d 228, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We “do not look at the decision as would a 

scientist,” but only to ensure that EPA adheres to “certain 

minimal standards of rationality.” National Environmental 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 5 of 11
6 

Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 

F.3d 803, 810 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted); see ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 669 F.3d 

330, 336 (D.C. Cir. 2012); American Trucking Associations, 

Inc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2002); American 

Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 

1981); Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 

1976) (en banc). 

In this case, petitioners raise a number of distinct 

arguments in support of their claim that EPA’s decision not to 

alter the primary standards for carbon monoxide was arbitrary 

and capricious. We here address the weightiest of those 

arguments. 

First, petitioners contend that EPA acted unreasonably in 

light of various epidemiological studies on the effects of 

carbon monoxide. Epidemiological studies identify the 

presence of a pollutant in a local area and monitor the number 

of hospital admissions, physician visits, and emergency room 

visits over a certain time period. A statistically significant 

correlation between the presence of the pollutant in the 

ambient air and the number of hospital admissions may 

suggest that the pollutant caused the onset of sickness in the 

population. See National Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project, 686 F.3d at 807. Petitioners 

argue that the relevant epidemiological studies on carbon 

monoxide show that the current primary standards for carbon 

monoxide allow emissions at levels that cause adverse health 

effects. However, EPA concluded that the studies show only 

that carbon monoxide emissions at the levels of the primary 

standards correlate with adverse health effects, not that 

emissions at those levels cause those health effects. See 76 

Fed. Reg. at 54,299, 54,304-05. As EPA reasonably 

explained, the modeling programs used in the epidemiological 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 6 of 11
7 

studies did not rule out the possibility that another pollutant 

was causing the adverse health effects observed in the studies. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. at 54,305; Response to Comments 33. 

Petitioners counter that EPA relied on similar 

epidemiological data in setting the standards for two other 

pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. But in those 

cases, as EPA reasonably explained, toxicology and clinical 

studies produced similar results and thus buttressed the 

epidemiological studies. See National Environmental 

Development Association’s Clean Air Project, 686 F.3d at 

811-12; Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Nitrogen Dioxide, 74 Fed. Reg. 34,404, 34,409 (July 15, 

2009). With carbon monoxide, by contrast, no toxicology or 

clinical studies show that carbon monoxide emissions at the 

levels of the primary standards caused adverse health effects. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. at 54,305 & n.26. 

Second, petitioners argue that EPA did not include 

several kinds of studies in its Integrated Science Assessment, 

including scientific review studies and carbon monoxide 

poisoning studies. As EPA pointed out, however, the 

scientific review studies only summarize the results of other 

studies and provide no new information. See Response to 

Comments 9 n.3. And EPA reasonably explained that the 

carbon monoxide poisoning studies were not focused on the 

effects of carbon monoxide exposure at the levels permitted 

by the primary standards, and thus were not helpful for 

determining what physical effects are caused by emissions of 

carbon monoxide at the levels of the primary NAAQS. See 

Integrated Science Assessment 1-7; Response to Comments 

8-10. 

Third, petitioners assert that EPA accepted the findings of 

an outdated human clinical trial, the Allred study of 1989, to 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 7 of 11
8 

the exclusion of other relevant studies. EPA acknowledges 

that it relied heavily on the Allred study in the carbon 

monoxide rulemaking. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 54,300. But 

according to EPA, it did so because human clinical trials like 

the Allred study remained “the most compelling evidence of 

CO-induced effects on the cardiovascular system.” Id. 

Subsequent studies reinforce the findings of the Allred study. 

See id. at 54,300 & n.11. In short, EPA reasonably explained 

why it relied on the Allred study. 

Fourth, petitioners say that EPA mischaracterized and 

ignored the advice of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee. Under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee acts as an “independent scientific review 

committee” and advises EPA during the NAAQS rulemaking. 

42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(2)(A); see American Trucking 

Associations, 283 F.3d at 358. The Advisory Committee’s 

“pertinent findings, recommendations, and comments” must 

be “set forth” or summarized by EPA in the Final Rule. 42 

U.S.C. § 7607(d)(3). EPA must also explain any reasons for 

“important” departures from the Advisory Committee’s 

recommendations. Id. 

In this case, as EPA explained: “Although CASAC [the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee] expressed a 

preference for a lower standard, CASAC also indicated that 

the current evidence provides support for retaining the current 

suite of standards and CASAC’s recommendations appear to 

recognize that their preference for a lower standard was 

contingent on a judgment as to the weight to be placed on the 

epidemiological evidence.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 54,304. By its 

terms, as EPA noted, the Advisory Committee’s report 

expressly supported either of two options: “retaining or 

revising the current 8-hr standard.” Letter from Dr. Joseph 

Brain, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 8 of 11
9 

Carbon Monoxide Review Panel, & Dr. Jonathan Samet, 

Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to EPA 

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson 12 (June 8, 2010). Because the 

Advisory Committee’s recommendation permitted the option 

of retaining the current primary standards, it cannot be said 

that EPA departed from the Committee’s recommendations in 

this case. 

In sum, we have considered all of petitioners’ challenges 

to EPA’s decision to retain the extant primary standards. We 

find none of petitioners’ arguments persuasive. 

III 

Petitioners also challenge EPA’s decision not to set a 

secondary standard for carbon monoxide in order to protect 

the public welfare. The “public welfare” encompasses the 

welfare of animals, the environment, and climate, among 

other things. 

EPA initially responds that petitioners lack standing to 

make this argument. To establish standing, a party must 

demonstrate an injury-in-fact that was caused by the 

defendant and that may be redressed by the court. To support 

their standing, petitioners rely on Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 

U.S. 497 (2007), which held that States have standing to 

complain about the effects of global warming caused by 

EPA’s allegedly illegal under-regulation of certain 

greenhouse gas emissions. But even assuming for the sake of 

argument that Massachusetts v. EPA grants standing for 

plaintiffs other than States, petitioners here have failed to 

establish the causation element of standing. Petitioners claim 

that EPA’s decision not to set a secondary standard for carbon 

monoxide will worsen global warming and in turn displace 

birds that one of petitioners’ members observes for 

recreational purposes. But petitioners have not presented a 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 9 of 11
10 

sufficient showing that carbon monoxide emissions in the 

United States – at the level allowed by EPA – will worsen 

global warming as compared to what would happen if EPA 

set the secondary standards in accordance with the law as 

petitioners see it. Moreover, citing and analyzing many 

scientific studies, EPA explained that carbon monoxide’s 

effects on climate change involve “significant uncertainties.” 

Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Carbon Monoxide, 76 Fed. Reg. 54,294, 54,310 (Aug. 31, 

2011). EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

likewise agreed that the “current high level of uncertainty 

does not favor the development of a secondary standard.” 

Letter from Dr. Joseph Brain, Chair, Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee Carbon Monoxide Review Panel, & Dr. 

Jonathan Samet, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson 9 (Jan. 20, 

2010). EPA ultimately determined, therefore, that it was “not 

possible to anticipate how any secondary standard that would 

limit ambient CO concentrations in the United States would in 

turn affect climate and thus any associated welfare effects.” 

76 Fed. Reg. at 54,310. 

For the reasons identified by EPA, petitioners’ theory of 

causation is simply a bridge too far given the current record. 

Petitioners have not presented a sufficient showing that 

carbon monoxide at the level permitted by EPA would worsen 

global warming as compared to what would happen if EPA 

set the secondary standard in accordance with the law as 

petitioners see it. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 

(D.C. Cir. 2002). Therefore, petitioners do not have standing 

to advance this claim in this case. 

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 10 of 11
11 

* * * 

We have considered all of petitioners’ arguments. We 

deny the petition for review of the primary standards and 

dismiss the petition for review of the secondary standard for 

lack of standing. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #11-1423 Document #1487915 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page 11 of 11