Description: Challenges to EPA’s final rule extending certain implementation deadlines for the 2016 emission guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills.
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/05/2021 Order Download Motion for voluntary vacatur and remand granted. D.C. Circuit Vacated Rule Extending Implementation Deadlines for Landfill Emission Guidelines. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA’s request for voluntary vacatur and remand of a final rule delaying implementation of emission guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills under Clean Air Act Section 111(d). EPA requested vacatur based on the D.C. Circuit January 2021 opinion in American Lung Association v. EPA, which addressed the repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan and also found that the justifications for extending Section 111(d) implementation timelines were inadequate. The landfill regulations incorporated the deadlines found to be invalid in American Lung Association. 03/04/2021 Motion Download Consent motion for voluntary vacatur and remand filed by respondent. EPA Asked D.C. Circuit to Vacate Rule Extending Implementation Timeline for Landfill Emission Guidelines. EPA filed a motion in the D.C. Circuit for voluntary vacatur and remand of the final rule extending implementation timelines for emission guidelines under Clean Air Act Section 111(d) for municipal solid waste landfills. EPA argued that it was appropriate for the court to grant the request due to the D.C. Circuit opinion in American Lung Association v. EPA that found the justifications for extending Section 111(d) implementation timelines to be inadequate. EPA also noted that it had evaluated the final rule pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 and that it planned to issue a federal plan by May 2021 for any state without an approved state plan implementing the landfill emission guidelines. In addition to arguing that vacatur was an appropriate course of action because the D.C. Circuit had already rejected arguments similar to those EPA made in support of the landfill rule, EPA also contended that vacatur was more practical than remand without vacatur and that vacatur would not have disruptive consequences such as deleterious effects on public health and the environment. 02/02/2021 Motion Download Unopposed motion filed by EPA to continue oral argument date. EPA Requested Postponement of Oral Argument in Landfill Emission Guidelines Case. On February 2, 2021, EPA filed an unopposed motion to postpone oral argument in the proceedings challenging the final rule delaying implementation of emission guidelines for existing municipal solid waste landfills. Oral argument is scheduled for February 22. EPA requested that the argument not take place before April 8 to allow EPA time to evaluate the impact of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in the Affordable Clean Energy Rule case (which vacated regulations extending timelines for implementation of emission guidelines) as well as to review the landfill delay rule pursuant to the Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis. The non-exclusive list of agency actions accompanying the executive order included the landfill delay rule as one of the rules that must be reviewed. 01/26/2021 Letter Download Letter filed by petitioners to notify the panel of the decision in American Lung Association v. EPA. 10/23/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.
California v. EPA
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/25/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. States Filed Protective Challenge to EPA Extension of Deadlines for Implementing Landfill Emission Guidelines. California and eight other states filed a protective petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA’s final rule published in August 2019 that had the effect of extending certain implementation deadlines for the emission guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills promulgated in 2016. In their petition, the states indicated that they believed a district court order in the Northern District of California would mitigate the final rule’s harm, but that it was necessary to file the petition because EPA had filed a motion to amend the district court’s order. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) also filed a petition for review of EPA’s final rule. The states' proceeding was consolidated with EDF's proceeding.