Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future v. Regan

Background

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate hazardous air pollutants through two kinds of standards. Technology-based standards require pollution sources to use specified control technologies and must be reviewed at least every eight years. Risk-based standards address health and environmental risks that remain after technology-based controls are in place.

This case concerned two coke-oven source categories: “Coke Oven Batteries” and “Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.” Four environmental groups—Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Gasp, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Sierra Club—filed a Clean Air Act citizen suit. A citizen suit allows a person to ask a federal court to enforce an agency’s nondiscretionary statutory duty. The plaintiffs alleged that the EPA administrator had failed to complete four required reviews: a technology review and a residual-risk review for each source category.

EPA conceded three claims. It admitted that it had not completed either an initial technology review or any residual-risk review for the pushing, quenching, and battery-stacks category. It also admitted that a follow-up technology review for the coke-oven-batteries category was overdue. The parties disputed the fourth claim: whether EPA had to perform a second residual-risk review for coke-oven batteries after revising the technology-based standards in 2005.

Statutory interpretation and jurisdiction

The plaintiffs argued that 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)(A) requires a residual-risk review within eight years after each promulgation or revision of technology-based standards. EPA argued that the provision creates a one-time obligation tied to the initial technology-based standards for a source category. EPA had performed a technology review and residual-risk review for coke-oven batteries in 2005.

The court concluded that the statutory phrase “promulgation of standards” could reasonably be interpreted either to include or to exclude revisions to existing standards. Because Clean Air Act citizen suits require a “specific, unequivocal command” before an agency duty is treated as nondiscretionary, the court held that § 7412(f) did not clearly require EPA to conduct another residual-risk review when it revised existing technology-based standards.

The court dismissed the second residual-risk-review claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that the dispute involved a legal question of statutory interpretation, not a factual dispute, and that the plaintiffs’ nonfrivolous argument was not enough to establish jurisdiction under the citizen-suit provision.

Relief on the conceded claims

The court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the three claims EPA conceded: the initial technology review for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks; any risk review for that category; and the follow-up technology review for coke-oven batteries.

The court ordered EPA to complete the required actions within 30 months of the ruling. It rejected both the plaintiffs’ proposed 16-month schedule and EPA’s proposed 36-month schedule. The court found that the coke-oven source categories were complex, but concluded that EPA’s proposed schedule included extra procedures, including six months for two pre-publication reviews by the Office of Management and Budget. The court declined to impose intermediate deadlines, allowing EPA to distribute the 30 months among the rulemaking phases.

Disposition

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on three claims, dismissed the fourth claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and ordered EPA to complete the three required reviews within 30 months. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.