Appalachian Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
208 F.3d 1015 (2000)
Facts
Under Title V of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air ACT (CAA), states must submit operating permits and proposed and final permits related to stationary sources of air pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) for approval. If the EPA objects to the permits within forty-five days, the state may not issue the permit. In 1992, the EPA promulgated rules implementing the permit program. These rules mandated that permits contain a requirement for periodic monitoring. The rules were unclear as to whether this monitoring requirement trumped existing, non-periodic, monitoring requirements for certain polluters. To address this point, the EPA issued a document entitled “Periodic Monitoring Guidance for Title V Operating Permit Programs” (Guidance). The Guidance clarified that permits are to require “periodic monitoring” even in situations where the source of pollution was already subject to a different, non-periodic, monitoring requirement. Electric power companies and trade associations representing the nation’s chemical and petroleum industry (plaintiffs) challenged the validity of portions of the Guidance. Their petitions were consolidated for review, and the matter came before a federal court of appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Randolph, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 687,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
