Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

7 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

challenging  the  plan  itself,  not  the  denial  of  reconsidera-
tion.  So the procedural bar on objections not raised in the 
comments presents a significant obstacle—in two ways. 
  First, consider the Court’s basic theory: that EPA offered 
“no reasoned response” to comments allegedly questioning 
whether  the  plan’s  emissions  limits  depend  on  the  States 
covered.  Ante, at 12.  That EPA failed to adequately explain 
its final rule in response to comments is “an objection to the 
notice and comment process itself,” which applicants “obvi-
ously did not and could not have raised . . . during the pe-
riod  for  public  comment.”    EME  Homer  City  Generation, 
L. P. v. EPA, 795 F. 3d 118, 137 (CADC 2015) (Kavanaugh, 
J.).    No  one  could  have  raised  during  the  proposal’s  com-
ment period the objection that the “final rule was not ‘rea-
sonably explained.’ ”  Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). 
  The D. C. Circuit, on remand in EME Homer, considered 
a  similar  objection  that  EPA  had  “violated  the  Clean  Air 
Act’s notice and comment requirements”: EPA had “signifi-
cantly amend[ed] the Rule between the proposed and final 
versions  without  providing  additional  opportunity  for  no-
tice and comment.”  795 F. 3d, at 137.  But because this pro-
cedural  objection  could  not  have  been  raised  during  the 
comment period, “the only appropriate path for petitioners” 
under §7607(d)(7)(B) was to raise it “through an initial pe-
tition for reconsideration to EPA.”  Ibid.  So the D. C. Cir-
cuit lacked “authority at th[at] time to reach this question.”  
Ibid.    While  such  “logical  outgrowth”  challenges  typically 
are cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act, see 
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F. 2d 741, 747 (CADC 1991), the 
Clean Air Act channels these challenges through reconsid-
eration proceedings.  This Court’s failure-to-explain objec-
tion may face the same problem: It is not judicially review-
able in its current posture.1 

—————— 

1 The  Court  offers  a 

feeble  response  to  this  application  of