Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/685/718/301956/
Timestamp: 2018-12-10 19:17:32
Document Index: 98218620

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7502', '§ 7502', '§ 7502', '§ 7502', '§ 7502', '§ 7410', '§ 7502', '§ 7502', '§ 7503', '§ 7503', '§ 7503', '§ 7503', '§ 7410', '§ 7410', '§ 101', '§ 1857', '§ 3', '§ 7409', '§ 7409', '§ 7409', '§ 7410', '§ 7410', '§ 7410', '§ 7501', '§ 7407', '§ 7410', '§ 7501', '§ 7411', '§ 7602', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 7411', '§ 7411']

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Citizens for Abetter Environment, Inc., Northwestern Ohio Lungassociation, Inc., Petitioners, v. Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,american Petroleum Institute, et al., American Iron Andsteel Institute, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc.,general Motors Corporation, Alabama Power Company, et al.,chemical Manufacturers Association, Intervenors, 685 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1982) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1982 › Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Citizens for Abetter Environment, Inc., Northwestern Ohio L...
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Citizens for Abetter Environment, Inc., Northwestern Ohio Lungassociation, Inc., Petitioners, v. Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,american Petroleum Institute, et al., American Iron Andsteel Institute, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc.,general Motors Corporation, Alabama Power Company, et al.,chemical Manufacturers Association, Intervenors, 685 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 685 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
Argued May 21, 1982. Decided August 17, 1982
In ruling upon EPA's regulatory change, we do not write on a clean slate. Our course is marked by two prior decisions in which panels of this court determined the applicability vel non of the bubble concept to distinct Clean Air Act programs. In Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the court held EPA must employ the concept in the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") regime, a scheme designed to maintain air quality in clean air areas; in ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the court ruled out application of the concept to national new source performance standards ("NSPSs") which the Act directs EPA to set with a view to enhancing air quality. In each case the court focused on the purpose Congress envisioned for the particular program at issue. ASARCO declared the bubble concept impermissible when the congressional objective was improvement, rather than simply preservation, of existing air quality. See 578 F.2d at 327-29; see also id. at 330 (Leventhal, J., concurring) (challenged regulations would contravene congressional policy contemplating that modification of a facility would bring about air quality improvement). Alabama Power held the concept "precisely suited" to the congressional design when the intent was "to preserve (existing) air quality," rather than to improve it. 636 F.2d at 402.
Congress, EPA does not dispute, intended the new source review requirements to operate not simply as a quality-maintaining scheme but specifically to promote the cleanup of nonattainment areas.6 We are therefore impelled by the force of our precedent in Alabama Power and ASARCO to hold that EPA's regulatory change, its employment of the bubble concept to shrink to relatively small size mandatory new source review in nonattainment areas, is impermissible.7 I. Background
Part D required states with nonattainment areas to submit revised SIPs not later than January 1, 1979. 42 U.S.C. § 7502 note (Supp. IV 1980). These revised SIPs must demonstrate that the primary NAAQSs will be attained "as expeditiously as practicable," but not later than December 31, 1982, or "if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator ... that such attainment is not possible in an area with respect to either (ozone or carbon monoxide (or both)), ... not later than December 31, 1987." Id. § 7502(a). The SIPs must also "provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable." Id. § 7502(b) (2). Until the NAAQSs are attained, "reasonable further progress" towards the standards must occur in each intervening year. Id. § 7502(b) (3).16
At the heart of the present dispute are two features of Congress' 1977 alterations: the Part D permit program, id. § 7502(b) (6), and the prohibition of major new construction in nonattainment areas lacking a SIP that meets the Part D requirements ("construction moratorium"), id. § 7410(a) (2) (I). Part D mandates that SIPs establish a permit program "for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources" in nonattainment areas. Id. § 7502(b) (6).17 States may issue a permit for construction or modification18 of a major19 source only if four conditions are met. First, the increased emissions from the proposed source must not exceed the allowance for growth identified and quantified in the SIP pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b) (5) or, alternatively, the applicant must obtain sufficient reductions in emissions in the nonattainment area to offset the increased emissions from the proposed source. Id. § 7503(1). Second, the proposed source must comply with the "lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)."20 Id. § 7503(2). Third, the applicant must demonstrate that all other major sources in the state under its control are in compliance (or are on a schedule for compliance) with applicable emissions limitations. Id. § 7503(3).
Finally, no permit may be issued unless the state is carrying out the applicable implementation plan for the nonattainment area in which the proposed source is to be located. Id. § 7503(4). If the nonattainment area lacks an EPA-approved SIP that meets Part D's requirements, the "construction moratorium" becomes operative and "no major stationary source (that would emit the nonattainment pollutant(s)) shall be constructed or modified in (the) area." Id. § 7410(a) (2) (I).21 B. EPA's Regulations
On November 18, 1981, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Citizens for a Better Environment, Inc., and Northwestern Ohio Lung Association, Inc. (collectively "Petitioners") filed the instant petition for review of EPA's October 14, 1981, regulations. Various members of the industrial community intervened in support of the altered regulations.28 II. Analysis
First, the court stated that in the absence of contrary congressional intent, the word "source" is to be defined consistently throughout the Act, as Congress defined it explicitly in Section 111(a) (3), to "mean() any building, structure, facility, or installation ...."30 Finding no contrary legislative intent with respect to the PSD program, the court held that the Section 111(a) (3) definition governed all PSD provisions. 636 F.2d at 396. Therefore, the court ruled, EPA exceeded its authority when it augmented the components of "source," for Part C definitional purposes, to embrace "any structure, building, facility, equipment, installation, or operation (or combination thereof) ...." See id. at 395 (emphasis in original).
In ASARCO the court "rejected in toto " EPA's application of the bubble concept33 to the NSPS program.34 578 F.2d at 325, 326-27. In addition to finding the bubble regulations inconsistent with the plain language of the Act,35 the court found them contrary to the basic purpose of the NSPS program, to "improve () air quality." Id. at 327 (emphasis in original). "The bubble concept in the challenged regulations would undercut (the NSPS program) by allowing operators to avoid installing the best pollution control technology on an altered facility as long as the emissions from the entire plant do not increase."36 Id. at 327-28.37
As we recently pointed out, see Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 684 F.2d 111, 118 & n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1982), the legal significance of a word or phrase must be gleaned from the context in which it is used. In the Alabama Power-ASARCO context, "purpose" clearly means goal, objective. The goal of the nonattainment program is undoubtedly to improve air quality in regions lagging behind in meeting the NAAQSs. Offering flexibility to the states may be a method of attaining that objective, but it is not an independent goal of the nonattainment scheme.
Under this concept an entire plant and its emissions are viewed as if placed under one bubble. One then "look(s) at any change proposed for (the) plant and decide(s) whether the net effect of all the steps (taken in conjunction with the) change is to increase the emission of any air pollutant." Without the bubble concept, individual units of a plant affected by an operational change would be inspected to "determine whether any of the units will consequently emit more of a pollutant." Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a) (2) (I), 7501-7508 (Supp. IV 1980)
See Potomac Alliance v. NRC, 682 F.2d 1030, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("(m) indful of our rules with respect to the maintenance of uniformity in dispositions of like cases by different divisions of this court")
Pub. L. No.91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970)
ASARCO, 578 F.2d at 321 (quoting Clean Air Act § 101(b) (1), 42 U.S.C. § 1857(b) (1) (1970), and citing W. Rogers, Environmental Law § 3.1 (1977))
Section 109 of the Act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7409 (Supp. IV 1980), required the Administrator of EPA to establish two sets of ambient air quality standards: "primary standards," "requisite to protect the public health," 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b) (1) (Supp. IV 1980); and "secondary standards," "requisite to protect the public welfare." Id. § 7409(b) (2)
The statute directed that SIPs provide for (1) attainment of primary standards "as expeditiously as practicable but ... in no case later than three years from the date of approval of such plan(s)" (not later than May 31, 1975, in most cases, see S.Rep.No.127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 55 (1977)); and (2) attainment of secondary standards within "a reasonable time." 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a) (2) (A) (Supp. IV 1980). Congress further instructed the Administrator of EPA to approve a submitted SIP if the plan met the requirements of the Act, id. § 7410(a), and if it did not, or if no plan was submitted, to propose and implement a plan for the state. Id. § 7410(c) (1)
Pub. L. No.95-95, 91 Stat. 685, 745-51, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7508 (Supp. IV 1980). The provisions of Part D, applicable to nonattainment areas as defined by Section 107(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d), are incorporated into the requirements of an adequate SIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a) (2) (I)
The term "reasonable further progress" means annual incremental reductions in emissions of the applicable air pollutant (including substantial reductions in the early years following approval or promulgation of plan provisions under this part (42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7508) and section 7410(a) (2) (I) of this title and regular reductions thereafter) which are sufficient in the judgment of the Administrator, to provide for attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the date required in section 7502(a) of this title
" '(M)odification' means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted." Id. § 7411(a) (4)
A "major" new source is one "which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollutant ...." Id. § 7602(j). See also 40 C.F.R. § 51.18(j) (1) (v) (a) (1981). A "major" modification is one that results in a "significant" increase of any pollutant. Id. § 51.18(j) (1) (vi). The significance levels currently in force are:
Id. § 51.18(j) (1) (xiii).
Id. § 7411(a) (3)
Compare 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a) (3) (Supp. IV 1980) with language quoted in note 33
In promulgating the August 7, 1980, regulations, EPA clearly expressed its belief that the dual definition, by "bring(ing) in more sources or modifications for review than would the plant-wide definition" was "more consistent with Congressional intent" to reduce emissions, improve air quality, and require better pollution control technology in nonattainment areas. 1980 Regulations, 45 Fed.Reg. at 52697-98. In explaining its October 14, 1981, revisions, EPA suggested just the opposite: the dual definition may in fact retard improvement in air quality by discouraging replacement of older processes or equipment with newer, cleaner varieties. 1981 Regulations, 46 Fed.Reg. at 50768; see also Notice, 46 Fed.Reg. at 16281. However, in abandoning its earlier position, EPA did not cite, nor have we found in the record, any study, survey, or support for the opposite position, now tendered by EPA, that the dual definition would indeed retard improvement of air quality in the aggregate. Therefore, EPA's decision to implement the bubble concept, if based on this rationale, would not rise to the level of reasoned decisionmaking for EPA "has some burden ... to show that a regulation once considered to (effectuate policy) efficiently can no longer be expected to do so." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Department of Transportation, 680 F.2d 206, 231 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Speculation is not enough
Intervenors proffer several alternative reasons supporting EPA's deletion of the reconstruction rule. See Brief for Industry Intervenor-Respondents at 59-66. However, it is a "central tenet of administrative law that a reviewing court may not affirm an administrative agency's actions on a reasoned basis different from the rationale actually put forth by the agency." Public Media Center v. FCC, 587 F.2d 1322, 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Gulf States Util. Co. v. FPC, 411 U.S. 747, 764, 93 S. Ct. 1870, 1880, 36 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1973); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S. Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L. Ed. 1995 (1947)