Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

D.C. Circuit Court Decision Signals Reduced Public Oversight in Air Quality Monitoring

By Sara A. McQuillen & David M. Loring on June 10, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Gavel In Court Room

The D.C. Circuit handed down an opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA last month that tossed the Sierra Club’s challenge of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule from the Obama Administration. The result may be greater flexibility and reduced public oversight in state ambient air quality monitoring.

The ruling upholds the EPA’s policy of largely deferring to states to establish and control air monitoring networks, limiting the ability of NGOs like Sierra Club to challenge those decisions under the federal law. Notably, the court also expressed its skepticism that a mere decrease in the frequency of air monitoring would necessarily result in public harm.

In its complaint, the Sierra Club challenged three aspects of the rule:

  1. the rule removed the ability to federally challenge air monitoring plans by allowing the EPA to approve changes to state air monitoring plans without notice and comment rulemaking;
  2. the rule gave EPA regional administrators the authority to reduce the frequency of state PM2.5 monitoring upon request; and
  3. the rule reduced the reliability of ambient air quality monitoring by eliminating certain quality assurance requirements for ambient monitoring in areas that are attaining the NAAQS.

The three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected these arguments on procedural grounds by finding that the EPA approach being challenged by the Sierra Club had been in place since 2006 – meaning that the window to challenge it had long since passed. The court also found that the Sierra Club had not shown that its members would actually be harmed by changes in the frequency of air sampling, and therefore, the organization lacked standing to pursue its claim in the first place.

The Sierra Club had to demonstrate, not merely allege, that there is a “substantial probability” that one of its members will suffer an injury if the court does not take action, i.e., prevent the EPA from allowing regional administrators to consider reductions in sampling frequency. As the court points outs:

For a Sierra Club member to face an increased risk of harm, the following conditions would have to be fulfilled. (1) A state must request a reduction in sampling frequency; (2) the request must concern a monitor near one of Sierra Club’s members; (3) the request must be approved by the Regional Administrator; (4) there must be a likelihood that a spike in PM2.5 levels near that monitor will occur at a time when the monitor would have been sampling but for the approved reduction; (5) and conditions must be such that no nearby monitor would pick up the spike.

In its attempt to meet these five conditions, Sierra Club identified three different monitors that are (1) eligible for a reduction in sampling, and (2) placed near a Sierra Club member. The court was unpersuaded by these examples, however, as it found the eligible monitors were at rather low-risk sites and that all other events that would have to occur were far too theoretical and unlikely. In concluding that the Sierra Club failed to prove that there is a substantial probability that any harm would actually result from the level of monitoring frequency, the court explained that the Sierra Club’s standing simply “stacks speculation upon hypothetical upon speculation.”

The Sierra Club may contest this opinion by petitioning the three-judge panel to reconsider the case, or petition the full D.C. Circuit en banc to rehear the case.

Photo of Sara A. McQuillen Sara A. McQuillen

Sara actively assists with both energy and environmental matters. She handles a variety of complex litigation and regulatory matters involving federal, state, and local energy and environmental laws. She has experience advising clients on regulatory compliance issues, drafting briefs and memoranda, and managing…

Sara actively assists with both energy and environmental matters. She handles a variety of complex litigation and regulatory matters involving federal, state, and local energy and environmental laws. She has experience advising clients on regulatory compliance issues, drafting briefs and memoranda, and managing discovery and other aspects of trial preparation. Sara strives to get to the root of a client’s issue and works toward thoughtful, focused, and creative solutions.

Read more about Sara A. McQuillenEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of David M. Loring David M. Loring

David M. Loring concentrates his practice in all areas of environmental law. He has counseled and represented electric generating and large industrial clients on a variety of federal, state and administrative litigation and regulatory matters.

Read more about David M. LoringEmail
  • Posted in:
    Energy, Environmental
  • Blog:
    Energy & Environmental Law Adviser
  • Organization:
    ArentFox Schiff LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Pro Policyholder
  • The Way on FDA
  • Crypto Digest
  • Inside Cybersecurity & Privacy Law
  • La Oficina Legal Ayala Hernández
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo