UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT; REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court grants the EPA's petition for rehearing to clarify the application of the Emission Offset Ruling, stating that while nonattainment designations can be relevant, the EPA cannot rely on designations previously invalidated by the court.
The EPA petitioned for rehearing or clarification regarding the application of the Emission Offset Ruling in relation to nonattainment area designatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Before GODBOLD, Circuit Judge, SKELTON,* Senior Judge, and RUBIN, Circuit Judge.
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:
The EPA has petitioned for a rehearing on or clarification of the issue of application of the Emission Offset Ruling referred to in the last part of our original opinion. The petition must be granted to the following extent.
The Offset Ruling applies fairly stringent limitations on the construction of any new emissions source that would cause an NAAQS violation or exacerbate an existing one. As the EPA points out, application of the Ruling is on a case by case basis and does not depend entirely upon whether the proposed source is within a designated § 7407(d) nonattainment area. Some sources within such areas may be approved 1 and some sources not within such areas may be disapproved.2 It appears evident to us that the existence of a nonattainment designation may have substantial impact on application of the Ruling in the areas in question in this case. As EPA acknowledges, a designation creates a “working presumption.” EPA is not precluded from using the Offset Ruling in these areas, if such application is warranted in a particular case. Rather, in its application of the Ruling EPA may not rely upon the designations invalidated by us. Any reliance upon nonattainment designations as relevant to application of the Ruling must await new designations. We express no views on the procedures to be followed in such a case.
To the extent herein indicated, the petition for rehearing or clarification is GRANTED.
. For example, a new source within a nonattainment area may be approved if it is determined that it is in a “clean” part .of that area and will not contribute to pollution levels elsewhere. 41 Fed.Reg. at 55528.
. For example, construction of a new source may be disapproved if it will contribute to a violation in a nearby designated nonattainment area or if it will cause a future violation, as of its proposed operation date. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Cent. Lincoln Peoples' Util. Dist. v. Johnson, 735 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1984)
-
City OF Seabrook v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 659 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Goldschmidt, 645 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence