Mar 5: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-71907. The Latino Issues Forum and Sierra Club challenged U.S. EPA's approval of a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) for San Joaquin Valley, California. The revision, known as Rule 4550, is part of the Conservation Management Practices (CMP) Program, an air-pollutant reduction program, established by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District). Rule 4550 aims to reduce emissions from agricultural sources of a certain kind of particulate matter known as PM-10. The Appeals Court ruled, "We hold that Rule 4550 comports with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 7509 and 7513a(b)(1)(B) and, therefore, deny the petition."
The Petitioners challenged two aspects of EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 as being arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. First, Petitioners claim that Rule 4550 does not incorporate “all feasible measures,” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7509(d)(2). Second, Petitioners assert that Rule 4550’s menu of options for controlling agricultural PM-10 emissions does not constitute BACM, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B).
On the first question, the Appeals Court said, "Because § 7509(d)(2) is ambiguous and the EPA’s statutory interpretation is reasonable, we hold that the EPA acted lawfully by not requiring implementation of 'all feasible measures' into Rule 4550." On the second issue, the Appeals Court said, "EPA demonstrated that the controls included in the rule’s menu meet the stringency requirements of BACM. Although the context is different, our inquiry into whether the EPA properly followed the procedures set forth by the Act remains the same. And, just as we held in Vigil, there is no evidence here that the process which led to the creation and adoption of Rule 4550 was improper. . . Because the EPA made no clear error of judgment in ruling that Rule 4550 complies with BACM, because the EPA followed its regulatory process, and because that process was consistent with one we approved in Vigil, we hold that the EPA’s approval of Rule 4550 did not violate 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(b)(1)(B)."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Friday, March 6, 2009
Martex Farms, S.E. v. Environmental Appeals Board
Mar 5: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 08-1311. Martex Farms, S.E., one of the largest commercial farms in Puerto Rico, appealed a final decision and order of U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (the Board), which held Martex liable for numerous violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. The Appeals Court affirmed the Board's decision in full, as to both liability and penalty.
Because Martex uses pesticides as part of its agricultural methods, it is subject to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40 C.F.R. pt. 170, which is enforced by EPA. The WPS is intended to reduce the risk of illness and injury to workers and handlers who are exposed to pesticides during the course of employment. In January 28, 2005, EPA filed an administrative complaint against Martex alleging 336 violations of FIFRA by Martex. The EPA accused Martex of failing to meet several rather common sense and straightforward WPS requirements, including: (1) displaying information for workers and handlers regarding pesticide application; (2) providing decontamination supplies for workers and handlers in easily accessible locations; and (3) providing handlers with personal protective equipment. Martex subsequently appealed the decisions of an administrative law Judge and the Board.
The Appeals Court said, "Our review of the Board's conclusions is highly deferential. By statute, we will sustain the Board's order 'if it is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole.' 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). In addition, we will sustain the EPA's interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is 'arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise plainly impermissible.'"
On one of the primary arguments, i.e. Substantial Evidence Claim, the Appeals Court said, "Martex also contests the substantive findings of liability made below. The crux of Martex's argument in this regard is that its farms contain abundant sources of water, such as lakes, streams, and fruit washing facilities, which are sufficient to comply with the WPS standards. However, neither in its brief nor at oral argument did Martex allege that these water sources were grouped together with the required soap and paper towels, or that they were available within 1/4 mile of the work sites, as required by regulations. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record points to the opposite conclusion. We therefore see no basis for reversal as to the substantive violations."
On the penalty issue, the Appeals Court said, "The maximum statutory fine for each violation of FIFRA committed by Martex is $1,100. The Board conducted a deliberate and rigorous evaluation of the proper penalty as to each violation, never assessed an amount greater than $1,100 for any violation, and in several cases assessed a much lower penalty. One of the factors it considered was Martex's ability to pay the proposed penalty. We therefore find no error."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Because Martex uses pesticides as part of its agricultural methods, it is subject to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40 C.F.R. pt. 170, which is enforced by EPA. The WPS is intended to reduce the risk of illness and injury to workers and handlers who are exposed to pesticides during the course of employment. In January 28, 2005, EPA filed an administrative complaint against Martex alleging 336 violations of FIFRA by Martex. The EPA accused Martex of failing to meet several rather common sense and straightforward WPS requirements, including: (1) displaying information for workers and handlers regarding pesticide application; (2) providing decontamination supplies for workers and handlers in easily accessible locations; and (3) providing handlers with personal protective equipment. Martex subsequently appealed the decisions of an administrative law Judge and the Board.
The Appeals Court said, "Our review of the Board's conclusions is highly deferential. By statute, we will sustain the Board's order 'if it is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole.' 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). In addition, we will sustain the EPA's interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is 'arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise plainly impermissible.'"
On one of the primary arguments, i.e. Substantial Evidence Claim, the Appeals Court said, "Martex also contests the substantive findings of liability made below. The crux of Martex's argument in this regard is that its farms contain abundant sources of water, such as lakes, streams, and fruit washing facilities, which are sufficient to comply with the WPS standards. However, neither in its brief nor at oral argument did Martex allege that these water sources were grouped together with the required soap and paper towels, or that they were available within 1/4 mile of the work sites, as required by regulations. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record points to the opposite conclusion. We therefore see no basis for reversal as to the substantive violations."
On the penalty issue, the Appeals Court said, "The maximum statutory fine for each violation of FIFRA committed by Martex is $1,100. The Board conducted a deliberate and rigorous evaluation of the proper penalty as to each violation, never assessed an amount greater than $1,100 for any violation, and in several cases assessed a much lower penalty. One of the factors it considered was Martex's ability to pay the proposed penalty. We therefore find no error."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Supreme Court Decision In Summers v. Earth Island Institute
Note: Previously, we have not posted Supreme Court decision here. Effective immediately, we will begin posting Supreme Court decision that we cover.
Mar 3: In the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 07-463 [See WIMS 10/8/08]. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit [See WIMS 6/11/07]. The questions presented are indicated by the Court as: 1. Whether the Forest Service's promulgation of 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), as distinct from the particular site-specific project to which those regulations were applied in this case, was a proper subject of judicial review. 2. Whether respondents established standing to bring this suit. 3. Whether respondents' challenge to 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) remained ripe and was otherwise judicially cognizable after the timber sale to which the regulations had been applied was withdrawn, and respondents' challenges to that sale had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement between the parties. 4. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the nationwide injunction issued by the district court. In the 5-4 split decision, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Kennedy also filed a separate concurring opinion. Justices Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, joined.
The majority said, "Respondents are a group of organizations dedicated to protecting the environment. (We will refer to them collectively as Earth Island.) They seek to prevent the United States Forest Service from enforcing regulations that exempt small fire-rehabilitation and timber-salvage projects from the notice, comment, and appeal process used by the Forest Service for more significant land management decisions. We must determine whether respondents have standing to challenge the regulations in the absence of a live dispute over a concrete application of those regulations." The case involves the "Burnt Ridge Project" for which the Service issued a decision memo approving the Project, a salvage sale of timber on 238 acres damaged by that fire in September 2003.
The Ninth Circuit held that Earth Island’s challenges to regulations not at issue in the Burnt Ridge Project were not ripe for adjudication because there was "not a sufficient ‘case or controversy’" before the court to sustain a facial challenge. It affirmed, however, the District Court’s determination that §§215.4(a) and 215.12(f), which were applicable to the Burnt Ridge Project, were contrary to law, and upheld the nationwide injunction against their application. The majority said, "Here, respondents can demonstrate standing only if application of the regulations by the Government will affect them in the manner described. . . It is common ground that the respondent organizations can assert the standing of their members. To establish the concrete and particularized injury that standing requires, respondents point to their members’ recreational interests in the National Forests. While generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone support standing, if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 734–736 (1972).
The majority determined that the one proof of valid standing in the case was, in fact settled and remedied, in the district court decision, and said, "Respondents have identified no other application of the invalidated regulations that threatens imminent and concrete harm to the interests of their members." The majority further said, "Respondents argue that they have standing to bring their challenge because they have suffered procedural injury, namely that they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actions and will continue to be so denied. But deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation -- a procedural right in vacuo -- [in isolation and without reference to anything else] is insufficient to create Article III standing."
The majority concluded, "Since we have resolved this case on the ground of stand-ing, we need not reach the Government’s contention that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the regulations are ripe for review under the Administrative Procedure Act.We likewise do not reach the question whether, if respondents prevailed, a nationwide injunction would be appropriate. And we do not disturb the dismissal of respondents’ challenge to the remaining regulations, which has not been appealed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part."
The majority also summarized and responded the dissenting argument as follows: "The dissent proposes a hitherto unheard of test for organizational standing: whether, accepting the organization’s self-description of the activities of its members, there is a statistical probability that some of those members are threatened with concrete injury. Since, for example, the Sierra Club asserts in its pleadings that it has more than "‘700,000 members nationwide, including thousands of members in California’" who "‘use and enjoy the Sequoia National Forest,’" post, . . . it is probable (according to the dissent) that some (unidentified) members have planned to visit some (unidentified) small parcels affected by the Forest Service’s procedures and will suffer (unidentified) concrete harm as a result. This novel approach to the law of organizational standing would make a mockery of our prior cases, which have required plaintiff-organizations to make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm.
Access the complete majority opinion and concurring and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to briefs filed in the case (click here). Access the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here).
Mar 3: In the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 07-463 [See WIMS 10/8/08]. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit [See WIMS 6/11/07]. The questions presented are indicated by the Court as: 1. Whether the Forest Service's promulgation of 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) and 215.12(f), as distinct from the particular site-specific project to which those regulations were applied in this case, was a proper subject of judicial review. 2. Whether respondents established standing to bring this suit. 3. Whether respondents' challenge to 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) remained ripe and was otherwise judicially cognizable after the timber sale to which the regulations had been applied was withdrawn, and respondents' challenges to that sale had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement between the parties. 4. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the nationwide injunction issued by the district court. In the 5-4 split decision, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Kennedy also filed a separate concurring opinion. Justices Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, joined.
The majority said, "Respondents are a group of organizations dedicated to protecting the environment. (We will refer to them collectively as Earth Island.) They seek to prevent the United States Forest Service from enforcing regulations that exempt small fire-rehabilitation and timber-salvage projects from the notice, comment, and appeal process used by the Forest Service for more significant land management decisions. We must determine whether respondents have standing to challenge the regulations in the absence of a live dispute over a concrete application of those regulations." The case involves the "Burnt Ridge Project" for which the Service issued a decision memo approving the Project, a salvage sale of timber on 238 acres damaged by that fire in September 2003.
The Ninth Circuit held that Earth Island’s challenges to regulations not at issue in the Burnt Ridge Project were not ripe for adjudication because there was "not a sufficient ‘case or controversy’" before the court to sustain a facial challenge. It affirmed, however, the District Court’s determination that §§215.4(a) and 215.12(f), which were applicable to the Burnt Ridge Project, were contrary to law, and upheld the nationwide injunction against their application. The majority said, "Here, respondents can demonstrate standing only if application of the regulations by the Government will affect them in the manner described. . . It is common ground that the respondent organizations can assert the standing of their members. To establish the concrete and particularized injury that standing requires, respondents point to their members’ recreational interests in the National Forests. While generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone support standing, if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 734–736 (1972).
The majority determined that the one proof of valid standing in the case was, in fact settled and remedied, in the district court decision, and said, "Respondents have identified no other application of the invalidated regulations that threatens imminent and concrete harm to the interests of their members." The majority further said, "Respondents argue that they have standing to bring their challenge because they have suffered procedural injury, namely that they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actions and will continue to be so denied. But deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation -- a procedural right in vacuo -- [in isolation and without reference to anything else] is insufficient to create Article III standing."
The majority concluded, "Since we have resolved this case on the ground of stand-ing, we need not reach the Government’s contention that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the regulations are ripe for review under the Administrative Procedure Act.We likewise do not reach the question whether, if respondents prevailed, a nationwide injunction would be appropriate. And we do not disturb the dismissal of respondents’ challenge to the remaining regulations, which has not been appealed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part."
The majority also summarized and responded the dissenting argument as follows: "The dissent proposes a hitherto unheard of test for organizational standing: whether, accepting the organization’s self-description of the activities of its members, there is a statistical probability that some of those members are threatened with concrete injury. Since, for example, the Sierra Club asserts in its pleadings that it has more than "‘700,000 members nationwide, including thousands of members in California’" who "‘use and enjoy the Sequoia National Forest,’" post, . . . it is probable (according to the dissent) that some (unidentified) members have planned to visit some (unidentified) small parcels affected by the Forest Service’s procedures and will suffer (unidentified) concrete harm as a result. This novel approach to the law of organizational standing would make a mockery of our prior cases, which have required plaintiff-organizations to make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm.
Access the complete majority opinion and concurring and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to briefs filed in the case (click here). Access the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here).
Friday, February 27, 2009
Sierra Club v. EPA
Feb 25: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 07-4485. According to the summary provided by the Sixth Circuit in its opinion, the Clean Air Act requires the U.S. EPA to object to an air-pollution permit if any person “demonstrates” to the EPA “that the permit is not in compliance” with the Act’s requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). In August 2006, the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA Administrator to object to a permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality to the East Kentucky Power Cooperative, claiming it had “demonstrate[d]” non-compliance because the EPA previously had issued a notice of violation to the same company (about the same plant) in January 2003 and had filed a federal-court complaint against the same company (about the same plant) in January 2004.
The Appeals Court said, "The EPA declined to object. Because it reasonably interpreted § 7661d(b)(2) to mean that the agency may alter its position about a power plant’s compliance with the Act based on intervening events and because the Sierra Club does not challenge the impact of these intervening events on the power plant’s compliance with the Act, we deny the petition for review."
This case arises from the power company’s request for a renewal of its Title V permit for one of the coal-powered steam generators, known (not so descriptively) as Unit 2, at the Spurlock Station power plant in Maysville, Kentucky. The Kentucky agency granted the permit in 1999. In 2003, apparently after discovering these changes to the plant, the EPA issued a notice of violation, informing the company that its Unit 2 permit failed to address the PSD requirements stemming from these modifications.
In August 2006, the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA to object to the permit, arguing (as it did in its comments to the state agency) that the proposed permit was deficient because it failed to address the PSD requirements. In support, the Sierra Club relied solely on the fact that the EPA previously had issued a notice of violation and had filed a civil-enforcement action based on the same allegations.
In August 2007, while the parties waited for the district court to approve the consent decree, the EPA reached a decision on the Sierra Club’s petition. Although it granted the petition in part (on an unrelated issue), it declined to object to the power company’s failure to address the PSD requirements. Acknowledging its prior notice of violation and enforcement action, the EPA explained that they were “initial steps” in the enforcement process and did not reflect the agency’s final position as to whether the Title V permit for Unit 2 needed to include a PSD compliance schedule.
The Appeals Court said, "The question is this: Does the Act require the EPA to object to a permit request when the agency previously has filed a notice of violation and enforcement action regarding the same allegations about the same plant? The answer turns on the meaning of a statute that the EPA administers and thus turns on an application of the familiar Chevron framework. Unless the statute’s terms “directly address[] the precise question at issue,” Chevron says that we must defer to the EPA’s “reasonable” interpretation of the provision. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). . .
"Under these circumstances, the EPA acted within its authority in addressing the Sierra Club’s objection. Consistent with Chevron, the EPA reasonably construed § 7661d(b)(2) to mean that a prior notice of violation and enforcement action did not by themselves require it to object to a permit request. And consistent with the APA, the EPA did not arbitrarily or capriciously deny the Sierra Club’s request, after accounting not only for the agency’s prior actions but also for developments in that litigation."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Appeals Court said, "The EPA declined to object. Because it reasonably interpreted § 7661d(b)(2) to mean that the agency may alter its position about a power plant’s compliance with the Act based on intervening events and because the Sierra Club does not challenge the impact of these intervening events on the power plant’s compliance with the Act, we deny the petition for review."
This case arises from the power company’s request for a renewal of its Title V permit for one of the coal-powered steam generators, known (not so descriptively) as Unit 2, at the Spurlock Station power plant in Maysville, Kentucky. The Kentucky agency granted the permit in 1999. In 2003, apparently after discovering these changes to the plant, the EPA issued a notice of violation, informing the company that its Unit 2 permit failed to address the PSD requirements stemming from these modifications.
In August 2006, the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA to object to the permit, arguing (as it did in its comments to the state agency) that the proposed permit was deficient because it failed to address the PSD requirements. In support, the Sierra Club relied solely on the fact that the EPA previously had issued a notice of violation and had filed a civil-enforcement action based on the same allegations.
In August 2007, while the parties waited for the district court to approve the consent decree, the EPA reached a decision on the Sierra Club’s petition. Although it granted the petition in part (on an unrelated issue), it declined to object to the power company’s failure to address the PSD requirements. Acknowledging its prior notice of violation and enforcement action, the EPA explained that they were “initial steps” in the enforcement process and did not reflect the agency’s final position as to whether the Title V permit for Unit 2 needed to include a PSD compliance schedule.
The Appeals Court said, "The question is this: Does the Act require the EPA to object to a permit request when the agency previously has filed a notice of violation and enforcement action regarding the same allegations about the same plant? The answer turns on the meaning of a statute that the EPA administers and thus turns on an application of the familiar Chevron framework. Unless the statute’s terms “directly address[] the precise question at issue,” Chevron says that we must defer to the EPA’s “reasonable” interpretation of the provision. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). . .
"Under these circumstances, the EPA acted within its authority in addressing the Sierra Club’s objection. Consistent with Chevron, the EPA reasonably construed § 7661d(b)(2) to mean that a prior notice of violation and enforcement action did not by themselves require it to object to a permit request. And consistent with the APA, the EPA did not arbitrarily or capriciously deny the Sierra Club’s request, after accounting not only for the agency’s prior actions but also for developments in that litigation."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA
Feb 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 061410, consolidated with 06-1411, 06-1415, 06-1416, 06-1417.In this high profile case involving many states, environmental organizations and industry groups the Appeals Court considered several challenges to U.S. EPA's most recent revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter [See WIMS 9/21/06]. The Appeals Court said, "Because the agency promulgated standards for fine particulate matter that were, in several respects, contrary to law and unsupported by adequately reasoned decisionmaking, we grant the petitions for review in part and remand those standards to the agency for further proceedings. We deny the petitions for review of the agency’s standards for coarse particulate matter because those standards are not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law."
The court explained the three sets of petitioners, joined by several intervenors and amici, filed petitions for review of the EPA’s final rule. The American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, and the National Parks Conservation Association (environmental petitioners) challenge the primary annual and secondary standards for fine PM as well as the elimination of the annual standard for coarse PM. Several states and state agencies (state petitioners) challenge the primary annual fine PM standard. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (industry petitioners) challenge the EPA’s retention of the PM10 indicator for coarse PM and the 150 µg/m3 level for the daily coarse PM standard.
The Appeals Court explains the various Parts of its decisions as follows. "In Part II we grant in part the petitions for review of the primary annual fine PM standard, brought by the states and environmental groups, and remand the standard to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA failed to explain adequately why an annual level of 15 µg/m3 is 'requisite to protect the public health,' including the health of vulnerable subpopulations, while providing 'an adequate margin of safety.'
"In Part III we grant in full the petition for review of the secondary NAAQS for fine PM brought by the environmental groups and remand them to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA unreasonably concluded that the NAAQS are adequate to protect the public welfare from adverse effects on visibility.
"In Part IV we deny the petitions for review of the primary daily standards for coarse PM brought by the industry groups. We do not reach the question raised by the amicus National Association of Home Builders whether the EPA lawfully could have distinguished between urban and nonurban coarse PM in selecting the coarse PM indicator.
"Finally, in Part V, we deny the petition for review of the EPA’s revocation of the primary annual standard for coarse PM brought by the environmental groups."
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who led a coalition of 18 states and cities in the case announced that they had "won a major victory in a challenge of lax Bush Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for fine soot pollution that had wholly failed to protect public health, particularly for children, elderly people and other vulnerable populations." Attorney General Cuomo said, “In an epic victory for New York State and the entire country, my office has ensured that politics don’t come in the way of public health and environmental protection. The EPA is charged with protecting the environment, yet the Bush administration had misconstrued the purpose of this agency, using it as a tool to facilitate pollution instead of combating it. As a result of this victory, millions of New York residents will have a chance to breathe easier. My office will work with the new Obama administration to make sure that new more protective soot standards are issued quickly.”
The states, cities and other state agencies joining Cuomo in the challenge included: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The States of Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts also joined as friends of the court.
The American Lung Association (ALA) issued a release saying they challenged the EPA’s standards, "because the science clearly showed that the standards set in 2006 failed to adequately protect public health." Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair said, “Strong, protective national air quality standards are fundamental for healthy air. Today’s triumph will save countless lives and is an important step forward in the American Lung Association’s continued work to fight for air."
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort who represented ALA, Environmental Defense Fund, and National Parks Conservation Association in the case said, "This is a huge victory for anyone who breathes. Particulate matter is one of the most deadly forms of pollution out there today. The Bush EPA refused to follow the advice of leading health advocates as well as its own scientists who argued that a stronger standard was needed to protect public health. Today's ruling corrects that injustice."
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement saying, “Because of Tuesday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory standards related to rural dust, farmers and ranchers could face additional and unwarranted regulations as states attempt to comply with federal standards. Farm Bureau challenged the EPA’s Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule for coarse particulate matter, but the court chose to disregard the overall lack of scientific support for the rule.
“Farm Bureau is disappointed in the outcome and concerned about costly measures to regulate rural dust that could be imposed on our farmers and ranchers. EPA’s own studies had failed to demonstrate adverse health effects associated with rural dust, which comes mostly from naturally occurring organic materials such as plants, sand and soil. Most disappointing is that the court suggested industry had the burden of proving that dust from agricultural sources was safe, rather than EPA proving within a margin of safety that the emissions caused harm. These dust standards are revised every five years, so it is difficult to predict the final impact of the ruling. However, during a time when farmers and ranchers are already struggling with the economics of producing food and fiber, the possibility of this leading to more regulatory costs does not bode well, especially since science does not show that any health benefits would result.”
Access the complete 50-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Attorney General Cuomo (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from the Farm Bureau (click here).
The court explained the three sets of petitioners, joined by several intervenors and amici, filed petitions for review of the EPA’s final rule. The American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, and the National Parks Conservation Association (environmental petitioners) challenge the primary annual and secondary standards for fine PM as well as the elimination of the annual standard for coarse PM. Several states and state agencies (state petitioners) challenge the primary annual fine PM standard. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (industry petitioners) challenge the EPA’s retention of the PM10 indicator for coarse PM and the 150 µg/m3 level for the daily coarse PM standard.
The Appeals Court explains the various Parts of its decisions as follows. "In Part II we grant in part the petitions for review of the primary annual fine PM standard, brought by the states and environmental groups, and remand the standard to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA failed to explain adequately why an annual level of 15 µg/m3 is 'requisite to protect the public health,' including the health of vulnerable subpopulations, while providing 'an adequate margin of safety.'
"In Part III we grant in full the petition for review of the secondary NAAQS for fine PM brought by the environmental groups and remand them to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA unreasonably concluded that the NAAQS are adequate to protect the public welfare from adverse effects on visibility.
"In Part IV we deny the petitions for review of the primary daily standards for coarse PM brought by the industry groups. We do not reach the question raised by the amicus National Association of Home Builders whether the EPA lawfully could have distinguished between urban and nonurban coarse PM in selecting the coarse PM indicator.
"Finally, in Part V, we deny the petition for review of the EPA’s revocation of the primary annual standard for coarse PM brought by the environmental groups."
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who led a coalition of 18 states and cities in the case announced that they had "won a major victory in a challenge of lax Bush Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for fine soot pollution that had wholly failed to protect public health, particularly for children, elderly people and other vulnerable populations." Attorney General Cuomo said, “In an epic victory for New York State and the entire country, my office has ensured that politics don’t come in the way of public health and environmental protection. The EPA is charged with protecting the environment, yet the Bush administration had misconstrued the purpose of this agency, using it as a tool to facilitate pollution instead of combating it. As a result of this victory, millions of New York residents will have a chance to breathe easier. My office will work with the new Obama administration to make sure that new more protective soot standards are issued quickly.”
The states, cities and other state agencies joining Cuomo in the challenge included: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The States of Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts also joined as friends of the court.
The American Lung Association (ALA) issued a release saying they challenged the EPA’s standards, "because the science clearly showed that the standards set in 2006 failed to adequately protect public health." Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair said, “Strong, protective national air quality standards are fundamental for healthy air. Today’s triumph will save countless lives and is an important step forward in the American Lung Association’s continued work to fight for air."
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort who represented ALA, Environmental Defense Fund, and National Parks Conservation Association in the case said, "This is a huge victory for anyone who breathes. Particulate matter is one of the most deadly forms of pollution out there today. The Bush EPA refused to follow the advice of leading health advocates as well as its own scientists who argued that a stronger standard was needed to protect public health. Today's ruling corrects that injustice."
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement saying, “Because of Tuesday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory standards related to rural dust, farmers and ranchers could face additional and unwarranted regulations as states attempt to comply with federal standards. Farm Bureau challenged the EPA’s Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule for coarse particulate matter, but the court chose to disregard the overall lack of scientific support for the rule.
“Farm Bureau is disappointed in the outcome and concerned about costly measures to regulate rural dust that could be imposed on our farmers and ranchers. EPA’s own studies had failed to demonstrate adverse health effects associated with rural dust, which comes mostly from naturally occurring organic materials such as plants, sand and soil. Most disappointing is that the court suggested industry had the burden of proving that dust from agricultural sources was safe, rather than EPA proving within a margin of safety that the emissions caused harm. These dust standards are revised every five years, so it is difficult to predict the final impact of the ruling. However, during a time when farmers and ranchers are already struggling with the economics of producing food and fiber, the possibility of this leading to more regulatory costs does not bode well, especially since science does not show that any health benefits would result.”
Access the complete 50-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Attorney General Cuomo (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from the Farm Bureau (click here).
USA v. Holden
Feb 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 07-5573, 07-5574. The appeal involves convictions arising out of an investigation into false reporting of pollutant levels in wastewater discharged by a water treatment facility in Mount Pleasant, Tennessee. Mike Holden, the operator of the plant, was convicted of knowingly falsifying and concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1001(a), and of falsifying documents with the intent to impede an investigation within the jurisdiction of the EPA in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1519. His father, Larry Holden, the Superintendent of Public Works for Mount Pleasant, was convicted of knowingly falsifying and concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the EPA.
The Holdens challenge their convictions on four grounds. First, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Marty Roddy had been treated for marijuana dependency in 1992. Second, they argue that the district court committed plain error by admitting into evidence a negative evaluation of the plant from before the charged period. Third, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit statements by Mike Holden under the “rule of completeness.” Fourth, they argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to find James Larry Holden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Appeals Court ruled, "We find that no reversible error occurred at trial, and we thus affirm."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Holdens challenge their convictions on four grounds. First, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Marty Roddy had been treated for marijuana dependency in 1992. Second, they argue that the district court committed plain error by admitting into evidence a negative evaluation of the plant from before the charged period. Third, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit statements by Mike Holden under the “rule of completeness.” Fourth, they argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to find James Larry Holden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Appeals Court ruled, "We find that no reversible error occurred at trial, and we thus affirm."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Moshe Leib v. Hillsborough County Public Transportation
Feb 19: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 08-14271. Moshe Leib (Leib) appealed from the district court’s dismissal of his suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission (HCPTC, or the Commission) for denying him permission to operate a Toyota Prius as one of the limousines offered by his transportation service. Leib argues that the HCPTC violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that the Commission’s rules are unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly burden interstate commerce. The district court dismissed Leib’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and the Appeals Court affirmed the decision.
Leib owns and operates TB Limo.com, a limousine service in the Tampa Bay area. Seeking to offer customers an "environmentally-friendly” alternative to traditional limousines, Leib bought a Prius. In order to operate the Prius as a limousine within Hillsborough County, Leib had to obtain a permit from the HCPTC, the administrative agency charged by the Florida State Legislature with regulating the operation of public vehicles on Hillsborough County’s public highways. The Commission denied Leib’s request on the ground that the Prius did not qualify as a “luxury” vehicle, and thus did not meet the definition of “limousine” in HCPTC Taxi Rule 1.15. A subsequent waiver request was also denied by HCPTC.
The Appeals Court said, ". . .Leib’s argument rests on a factual mistake: he argues that 'environmentally-friendly passengers that desire to utilize ecologically superior transportation are left with no alternative options whatsoever as a result of the HCPTC’s complete prohibition of eco-friendly vehicles for use as limousines.' This is simply false: an environmentally-friendly vehicle may qualify as a limousine so long as it meets Rule 1.15’s luxury and other requirements. Accordingly, Leib’s interstate commerce claim was properly dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Leib owns and operates TB Limo.com, a limousine service in the Tampa Bay area. Seeking to offer customers an "environmentally-friendly” alternative to traditional limousines, Leib bought a Prius. In order to operate the Prius as a limousine within Hillsborough County, Leib had to obtain a permit from the HCPTC, the administrative agency charged by the Florida State Legislature with regulating the operation of public vehicles on Hillsborough County’s public highways. The Commission denied Leib’s request on the ground that the Prius did not qualify as a “luxury” vehicle, and thus did not meet the definition of “limousine” in HCPTC Taxi Rule 1.15. A subsequent waiver request was also denied by HCPTC.
The Appeals Court said, ". . .Leib’s argument rests on a factual mistake: he argues that 'environmentally-friendly passengers that desire to utilize ecologically superior transportation are left with no alternative options whatsoever as a result of the HCPTC’s complete prohibition of eco-friendly vehicles for use as limousines.' This is simply false: an environmentally-friendly vehicle may qualify as a limousine so long as it meets Rule 1.15’s luxury and other requirements. Accordingly, Leib’s interstate commerce claim was properly dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
