Opinion ID: 997338
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nationally Applicable versus Locally

Text: or Regionally Applicable The EPA argues that the Ozone Transport SIP Call is nationally applicable because (1) it sets forth EPA's national approach for dealing with the problem of the interstate transport of ozone; (2) it affects 22 states and the District of Columbia, spanning eight different federal judicial circuits, (3) the rule is based on a common core of factual information and analyses concerning the long-range transport of ozone and ozone precursors over numerous states, (4) the EPA expects to establish uniform approvability criteria to be applied to all the states subject to the Ozone Transport SIP Call, and (5) through the rule, the EPA interprets section 110 of the Clean Air Act in a way that could affect future actions regulating the transport of pollutants. In fact, the EPA is so sure that this rule is nationally applicable that it has declared the Ozone Transport SIP Call to be of nationwide scope and effect. See 63 Fed. Reg. at 25969; Sept. 24, 1998 action, at 63941. Petitioners argue that the Ozone Transport SIP Call is regional or local because it is nothing more than numerous separate EPA actions on state-specific implementation plans, each based upon local factors and conditions. Petitioners argue that the EPA cannot turn several separate avowedly local actions, see Madison Gas & Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 4 F.3d 529, 530 (7th Cir. 1993), into a national one merely by bundling them together. Petitioners further point out that throughout the Ozone Transport SIP Call NPRM, the EPA itself noted the regional nature of the proposed rule. See, e.g., 62 Fed. Reg. at 60320, cols. 1, 3; id. at 60322, col. 1; id. at 60323, col. 1. Petitioners also take _________________________________________________________________ D.C. Circuit is a jurisdictional or venue provision. Compare Monongahela Power Co. v. Reilly, 980 F.2d 272, 275 (4th Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional) with State of New York v. E.P.A., 133 F.3d 987, 989 (7th Cir. 1998) (venue); Texas Mun. Power Agency v. E.P.A., 89 F.3d 858, 867 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (venue; citingunequivocal legislative history); Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 590-91 (1980) (venue; citing legislative history); Sprague v. King, 23 F.2d 185, 188 (7th Cir. 1994) (venue; different statute); Bywater Neighborhood Ass'n v. Tricarico, 879 F.2d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 1989) (venue; different statute). 11 issue with the EPA's argument that a rule is nationally applicable merely because it articulates precedent that could have national effects. Very few cases have addressed whether a particular EPA action was nationally or regionally applicable. There are certain types of actions that are clearly nationally applicable, for instance, when the EPA issues a rule which applies uniformly nationwide. See N.R.D.C. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (nationwide regulation); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. Costle, 647 F.2d 675, 677 (6th Cir. 1981) (nationwide regulation of manufacturers); Dow Chemical USA v. E.P.A., 491 F.Supp. 428, 431 (M.D. La. 1980) (nationwide standards of performance). On the other hand, certain types of actions are clearly regionally applicable, for instance, when the EPA brings an enforcement action against or makes a determination with respect to a particular facility. See Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S. 578 (1980) (determining applicability of standards to specific facility); Illinois E.P.A. v. U.S.E.P.A., 947 F.2d 283, 288-289 (7th Cir. 1991) (denial of a grant request). Action with respect to a single SIP, see Madison Gas, 4 F.3d at 530, or only a few states, State of New York v. E.P.A., 133 F.3d 987, 989 (7th Cir. 1998), are also clearly regionally or locally applicable. The current EPA rulemaking falls somewhere in between these two sets of clear cases. The Ozone Transport SIP Call is not merely action on a single state implementation plan or a few state implementation plans. It represents a coordinated effort to attack a problem that ignores state boundaries, and is based upon a common core of information and analysis involving 37 states, see 62 Fed. Reg. at 60318. On the other hand, the Ozone Transport SIP Call does not create rules for the entire country, and does operate via state-specific budgets. We are not phased by these facts, though. An EPA rule need not span from sea to shining sea10 to be nationally applicable. Here, the Ozone Transport SIP Call seeks to tackle a problem affecting twothirds of the country by regulating somewhat less than one half of the states. Contrary to Petitioners' arguments, these SIP calls are not truly _________________________________________________________________ 10 With apologies to Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories and protectorates. 12 separate and independent. The problem of ozone pollution and ozone transport is such that the efforts of each state in complying with the Ozone Transport SIP Call will have interconnected effects on the ability of other states to comply with the requirements of the rule and the Clean Air Act throughout the country. Cf. State of New York v. E.P.A., 133 F.3d at 989 (noting that local reductions in ozone precursors will reduce ozone in downwind states and increase ozone in surrounding areas). These effects are not speculative. See Madison Gas, 4 F.3d at 529. We acknowledge that precedent from other circuits indicates that the nationally applicable versus regionally applicable analysis should focus on who is regulated, not the effects of the regulation. See State of New York v. E.P.A., 133 F.3d at 990; cf. N.R.D.C. v. Thomas, 838 F.3d at 1249 (nationwide scope of the regulation is controlling .... If the jurisdiction provision turns on the de facto scope of the regulation, choice of the correct forum might raise complex factual and line-drawing problems.). We conclude, though, that the nationwide scope and interdependent nature of the problem, the large number of states, spanning most of the country, being regulated, the common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the rule, and the common legal interpretation advanced of section 110 of the Clean Air Act, all combine to make this a nationally applicable rule. Deciding that the Ozone Transport SIP Call is nationally applicable does not settle the matter, however. If Petitioners are challenging a local factor of the national program, then venue may still be proper in this Court. See Madison Gas, 4 F.3d at 530. For instance, if Petitioners had challenged the requirements the EPA sought to impose that were unique to West Virginia's NOx budget, then venue might lie in this Court. But Petitioners have challenged a national feature of this nationally applicable action. The RFA certification being challenged by Petitioners is a nationally applicable legal determination, affecting small entities uniformly from Madison, Wisconsin to Worcester, Massachusetts and from Mobile, Alabama to New York City, New York. Cf. Texas Mun. Power Agency v. E.P.A., 89 F.3d 858, 866 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (challenges to factual determinations more likely to be regionally applicable, while legal challenges likely to be nationally applicable). 13 Petitioners have challenged a national aspect of a nationally applicable rule under the Clean Air Act; therefore, proper venue lies in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.