Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 40

18 

OHIO v. EPA 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

rationales align with EPA’s response to critics of its decision 
to  propose  a  FIP  before  finalizing  its  SIP  disapprovals: 
Quickly proposing a FIP—just like keeping the FIP in place 
even if some States drop out—“is a reasonable and prudent 
means of assuring that [EPA’s] statutory obligation to re-
duce air pollution affecting the health and welfare of people 
in  downwind  states  is  implemented  without  delay.”    Re-
sponse to Comments 151. 
  Given these justifications and the state-agnostic method-
ology apparent in the final rule, EPA’s “ ‘path may reasona-
bly be discerned.’ ”  State Farm, 463 U. S., at 43.  The FIP’s 
cost thresholds and emissions limits did not depend in any 
significant  way  on  the  number  of  States  included,  so  the 
drawbacks  of  severability  were  minimal.    On  the  other 
hand, severability was necessary so that EPA could fulfill, 
to  the  greatest  extent  possible,  its  statutory  obligation  to 
eliminate  the  significant  ozone  contributions  of  upwind 
States and reduce harmful pollution in downwind States in 
time  to  meet  the  attainment  deadlines.    See  Response  to 
Comments 150 (noting the August 2024 ozone-NAAQS at-
tainment  deadline).    If  the  FIP  were  not  severable,  EPA 
would have to go back to the drawing board for all States 
whenever a single State is removed—thwarting its mission 
for little reason.10 
  Finally,  it  is  unlikely  that  EPA’s  response  to comments 
evinces  a “fail[ure] to consider  an  important  aspect  of  the 
problem.”  State Farm, 463 U. S., at 43 (emphasis added).  

—————— 

10 The Court claims that the severability clause is evidence that EPA 
“had  notice  of  the  objection  the  applicants  seek  to  press  in  court,”  yet 
EPA’s justifications for it did not address (alleged) concerns about how 
the cost-effectiveness thresholds would change with fewer States.  Ante, 
at 15–16.  But as explained above, commenters did not raise that issue 
with  specificity;  they  simply  pointed  out  that  some  SIP  disapprovals 
might  be  invalid.    The  severability  clause  is  evidence  that  EPA  was 
aware of that possibility, and the clause was EPA’s response to it.