Court Opinion

ID: 9477571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:26:24.880196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:56.605069
License: Public Domain

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Sentelle’s thoughtful opinion. I write separately, however, because this case poses an unusual problem in a unique set of circumstances, and because I believe that there are certain factors affecting our judgment that warrant emphasis.
The factual setting of this litigation is highly unusual. The regulatory practice, at least prior to Gerald Emison’s memorandum of March 28, 1986, is uncontroversial. EPA assessed compliance with the NAAQS for sulfur oxides using both block averages and running averages, depending upon the data submitted to it. Our decision in PPG Industries made plain that EPA could not require exclusive use of either block averages or running averages without first conducting informal rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Both in its brief and in oral argument before this court, EPA asserted that it has not departed from the regulatory status quo. Nevertheless, Emison’s memorandum appears, on its face, to be an authoritative agency statement requiring the use of block averages.* Complicating the picture further is the court’s suggestion in PPG Industries that affected parties who are convinced that EPA’s use of either block averages or running averages is improper should petition for rulemaking, so that the. agency might adopt a definitive position on this long-contested issue. For reasons that are difficult to fathom, NRDC has neglected to submit such a petition, and thus has *1098forgone the surest means of resolving this dispute.
For the second time, we deny a petitioner’s challenge to the regulatory status quo, and advise NRDC to petition EPA to enunciate its position on this matter before seeking relief in this court. We do so, however, with some pause. EPA’s contention that Emison’s memorandum does not constitute final action by the EPA Administrator is one we categorically reject. Emi-son occupies a position of authority with respect to the choice of averaging methodology. Government counsel acknowledged in oral argument before this court that Emison’s instructions would unquestionably be heeded by EPA employees and be regarded as determinative by state officials. Because the memorandum is undoubtedly final agency action, we would ordinarily reach the merits of NRDC’s challenge.
For prudential reasons, however, we demur. EPA’s repeated insistence that Emi-son’s memorandum does not represent a break with the status quo permitting use of both averaging methods renders the agency's position equivocal. The Administrator’s silence on this question increases the ambiguity of EPA’s stance. Given the uncertainty surrounding EPA’s position, and in view of the fact that NRDC does not strenuously object to continuation of the status quo that EPA maintains is still in existence (notwithstanding Emison’s memorandum), we think dismissal the wisest course. If NRDC desires clarification of EPA’s position, or if it wishes EPA to require exclusive use of running averages in assessing compliance, it should petition EPA to institute a rulemaking proceeding. EPA would have to respond to that petition in one of several ways. It could deny the petition and reaffirm the permissive status quo. Or it could commence rulemaking in accordance with NRDC’s request. Or it could embrace the views propounded in Emison’s memorandum, thereby repudiating the status quo. In any case, NRDC would then possess a clear statement of agency policy with respect to which it could seek judicial review.

The memorandum reads, in pertinent part:
The question has arisen whether block averages are indeed the proper interpretation of the NAAQS. We have investigated this issue, and concluded that block averages are the proper interpretation. Thus, we will continue to use block averages in actions implementing the 3-hour and 24-hour S02 NAAQS. This statement of interpretation is for the purpose of providing needed guidance for current and future implementation decisions....
Memorandum of Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mar. 28, 1986), reprinted in Supplemental Appendix at 1.