Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

National Mining Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

59 F.3d 1351 (1995)

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

National Mining Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

59 F.3d 1351 (1995)

Facts

In 1990, Congress revised the regulation of emissions of hazardous air pollutants under § 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Congress’s amendments in § 112 replaced the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) (defendant) health-based regulation of pollutants with a technology-based regulatory scheme. Congress required the EPA to publish a list of major sources and area sources that emitted certain pollutants and promulgate emissions standards for each. Major sources were defined by the rule as a group of stationary sources that were in a contiguous area and under common control and, in the aggregate, emit or, considering controls, have the potential to emit, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA included fugitive emissions in its calculation. A stationary source was defined as any building that emits or may emit any air pollutant. An area source was any stationary source that was not a major source. The EPA defined a source’s potential to emit as the source’s maximum capacity to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design, accounting for operational restraints that were federally enforceable. Federally enforceable controls were those that had been approved by the EPA and integrated into the state implementation plan that was drawn up by each state to enforce CAA restrictions. The EPA would not consider limitations other than those that were federally enforceable. National Mining Association and other industrial companies (NMA) (plaintiffs) challenged the EPA’s inclusion of fugitive emissions in making major source determinations because it had been held that under § 302 of the CAA, the EPA could not include fugitive emissions when determining whether a source was a major stationary source based on direct emissions. NMA also argued that the EPA may not make major source determinations without separating the facilities by industrial classification. Chemical Manufacturing Association and American Petroleum Institute (CMA) (plaintiffs) claimed that the EPA overstepped its regulatory authority by only permitting sources to reduce emissions using federally enforceable emissions controls and limitations.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

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