Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

3 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

(per curiam); §7511. 
  Second, the Court fails to recognize that EPA’s SIP dis-
approvals may, in fact, be valid.  EPA justified its findings 
that 23 States had failed to submit adequate SIPs.  It found 
that these States all significantly contributed to ozone pol-
lution in downwind States.  See 88 Fed. Reg. 36656 (2023).  
But  21  of these  States,  including applicants,  proposed  to 
do  nothing  to  reduce  their  ozone-precursor  (i.e.,  NOx) 
emissions—arguing that they did not actually contribute to 
downwind nonattainment or that there were no other cost-
effective emissions-reduction measures they could impose.  
See 88 Fed. Reg. 9354–9361 (2023).  The other two States 
failed to submit a SIP at all.  See 84 Fed. Reg. 66614 (2019).  
While 12 of EPA’s SIP disapprovals have been temporarily 
stayed, no court yet has invalidated one.  So EPA’s replace-
ment FIP—the Good Neighbor Plan—may yet apply to all 
23 original States.  Indeed, EPA and the plaintiffs who chal-
lenged  Nevada’s  SIP  disapproval  have  proposed  a  settle-
ment that would lift that stay.  89 Fed. Reg. 35091 (2024). 
  Third, the Court claims that commenters on the proposed 
FIP warned that its emissions limits might change if it cov-
ered fewer States, but EPA failed to respond.  Ante, at 6–8.  
Not exactly.  As I will elaborate below, commenters merely 
criticized EPA’s decision to propose a FIP before its SIP dis-
approvals were final.  EPA responded that this sequencing 
was  “consistent  with  [its]  past  practice  in  [its]  efforts  to 
timely  address  good  neighbor  obligations”:  Given  the  Au-
gust  2024  deadline  for  certain  States  to  comply  with  the 
2015 ozone NAAQS, EPA was “obligated” to start the years-
long process of promulgating a FIP so that one could be ef-
fective in time.  EPA, Response to Public Comments on Pro-
posed  Rule  149–150,  (EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0668–1127, 
June  2023)  (Response  to  Comments);  see  Wisconsin,  938 
F. 3d, at 313–314. 
  Finally, the Court repeatedly characterizes the FIP as re-
lying on an “assumption that [it] would apply to all covered