Opinion ID: 184965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Industry Groups' Challenge

Text: 33 Industry groups challenge EPA's requirement that compliance certifications be based on any other material information, including credible evidence, as impermissibly increasing the stringency of emissions standards. We, as we have before, conclude that the industry groups' challenge is unripe for review. 34 In Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, 150 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (CAIP), various industry groups challenged EPA's credible evidence rule revisions by alleging that the changes effectively increased the stringency of the underlying emissions standards contrary to proper rule making procedures. See id. at 1201, 1203. We held that, absent any demonstrable great hardship, the industry groups' stringency challenge would be unripe for review until EPA actually brought a credible evidence enforcement proceeding against a source. Id. at 1205. 35 The industry groups here, led by Appalachian, contend that CAIP's ripeness analysis is not applicable to the present challenge because, unlike in that case, delaying a decision here will cause hardship to source owners. They argue that a hardship will occur because in being required to use other material information in their certifications, source owners will be required to abandon any rights they might have to defend against the use of that evidence in enforcement proceedings. Appalachian Br. at 15. Whatever the merits of that argument might otherwise be, it does not appear that its factual underpinnings are sound in the present controversy. That is, it is not apparent that source owners will be required to abandon any such right. 36 At oral argument, EPA counsel agreed with the court's supposition that nothing precludes an owner from adding a caveat to its certification to the effect that, while it is providing other evidence which EPA might find material, the submitter disputes its materiality and reserves the right to challenge the use of the evidence in court. Counsel for Appalachian then agreed that the ability to use such disclaimer language solves our problem. We agree. In other words, Appalachian's challenge on this ground is still not ripe. 37 In attacking the information requirement, Appalachian also argues that any other information and credible evidence as employed by EPA are such facially vague terms as to violate the due process rights of the regulated entities. Appalachian's void-for-vagueness attack also fails due to ripeness considerations. Specifically, since Appalachian does not contend that the any other material information rule is vague in every circumstance, its facial challenge collapses and it must wait until there is an actual enforcement proceeding to make a specific challenge that will be ripe. Cf. CAIP, 150 F.3d at 1205-06.