Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County v. Environmental Protection Agency

739 F.2d 1071 (1984)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

739 F.2d 1071 (1984)

Facts

Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Floyd County, Indiana, shared a boundary on the Ohio River. Jefferson County and Floyd County drew on the same air resources and thus were designated, along with Clark County, Indiana, as the Louisville Interstate Air Quality Control Region. Each county was subject to the implementation plan adopted by its respective state. Initially, Indiana and Kentucky had adopted identical emission limitations for sulfur dioxide (SO2). In 1973, Indiana’s state implementation plan (SIP) set an emission limitation for the Gallagher Power Station. The Gallagher Power Station was located near the Indiana–Kentucky border and was the largest producer of SO2 in Floyd County. In 1974, Indiana adopted new SO2 regulations that exempted the Gallagher Power Station from emission limitations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) approved the exemption because it would not interfere with the attainment and maintenance standards in either Indiana or Kentucky. Jefferson County had strict SO2 emission limitations but was unable to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO2. In 1979, the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (plaintiff) filed a Section 126 petition for interstate pollution abatement under the Clean Air Act, requesting that the EPA find that SO2 emissions from the Gallagher Power Station were preventing the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQSs for SO2 in Jefferson County and that the emissions from the Gallagher Power Station would prevent Jefferson County from preventing deterioration of air quality once attainment is reached. The EPA calculated that only about 3 percent of the SO2 concentration in areas in Jefferson County that were not in attainment with the NAAQSs were attributable to the Gallagher Power Site. The EPA denied Jefferson County’s Section 126 petition, concluding that the Gallagher Power Station does not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Engel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership