United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-1322 September Term, 2014

 FILED: APRIL 10, 2015

COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

_____________________________________

Consolidated with 10-1024, 10-1025, 10-1026, 10-1030, 10-1035, 10-1036, 10-1037, 10-1038,

10-1039, 10-1040, 10-1041, 10-1042, 10-1044, 10-1045, 10-1046, 10-1234, 10-1235, 10-1239,

10-1245, 10-1281, 10-1310, 10-1318, 10-1319, 10-1320, 10-1321

______

No. 10-1073

COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

AMERICAN FROZEN FOOD INSTITUTE, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

_____________________________________

Consolidated with 10-1083, 10-1099, 10-1109, 10-1110, 10-1114, 10-1118, 10-1119, 10-1120,

10-1122, 10-1123, 10-1124, 10-1125, 10-1126, 10-1127, 10-1128, 10-1129, 10-1131, 10-1132,

10-1145, 10-1147, 10-1148, 10-1199, 10-1200, 10-1201, 10-1202, 10-1203, 10-1206, 10-1207,

10-1208, 10-1210, 10-1211, 10-1212, 10-1213, 10-1216, 10-1218, 10-1219, 10-1220, 10-1221,

10-1222

USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1546840 Filed: 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 3
No. 09-1322 September Term, 2014

No. 10-1092

COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

LANGBOARD, INC. - MDF, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

______________________________________

Consolidated with 10-1094, 10-1134, 10-1143, 10-1144, 10-1152, 10-1156, 10-1158, 10-1159,

10-1160, 10-1161, 10-1162, 10-1163, 10-1164, 10-1166, 10-1182

______

No. 10-1167

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LISA PEREZ JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENTS

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

_________________________________________

Consolidated with 10-1168, 10-1169, 10-1170, 10-1173, 10-1174, 10-1175, 10-1176, 10-1177,

10-1178, 10-1179, 10-1180

______

On Petitions for Review of Final Actions of the Environmental Protection Agency

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1546840 Filed: 04/10/2015 Page 2 of 3
No. 09-1322 September Term, 2014

Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

A M E N D E D J U D G M E N T

Upon consideration of the opinion in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct.

2427 (2014); EPA’s motion to govern further proceedings and the responses thereto; the State,

Industry, and Public Interest parties’ joint motion to govern future proceedings and the responses

thereto; the motion to govern of Environmental Respondent-Intervenors and the responses

thereto; the motion of Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Group to govern future proceedings and

the responses thereto; and the joint motion of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the

Association of Global Automakers to govern future proceedings and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that this court’s judgment filed June 26, 2012, be amended in accordance

with the Supreme Court’s decision. See UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. at 2449 (affirming in part and

reversing in part). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: (1) the regulations under review

(including 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated to the extent they

require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i)

that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification; (2) the regulations

under review be vacated to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit

solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit greenhouse gases above the

applicable major source thresholds; and (3) the regulations under review (in particular 40 C.F.R.

§ 52.22 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.12, 71.13) be vacated to the extent they require EPA to consider

further phasing-in the requirements identified in (1) and (2) above, at lower greenhouse gas

emission thresholds. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petitions for review in Nos. 09-

1322, et al., 10-1073, et al., 10-1092, et al., and 10-1167, et al., otherwise be denied in their

entirety. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that EPA take steps to rescind and/or revise the applicable

provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as expeditiously as practicable to reflect the relief

granted in the second decretal paragraph of this judgment. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that EPA consider whether any further revisions to its

regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, and if so, undertake to

make such revisions. 

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith. 

 Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1546840 Filed: 04/10/2015 Page 3 of 3