Advertisement

June 18, 2013

6th Circuit Says “No” to Using CAA Citizen Suit to Force State Agency to Act

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision cannot be used to compel state regulators to enforce a CAA requirement to limit pollution from new and modified sources. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit against Ohio EPA, and rather should have brought the action against U.S. EPA in its oversight role.

The Sierra Club and three Ohio residents argued that they could sue Ohio EPA to require it to make best available technology ("BAT") determinations before issuing permits to small emitters. A 2006 state law exempted sources that emit less than 10 tons of air pollution a year from the BAT requirement in an effort to lessen the burden of air pollution compliance for small businesses and facilitate issuance of permits to install and operate by Ohio EPA.

The court said the plaintiffs could sue the U.S. EPA for its failure to impose an administrative penalty on Ohio or for failing to administer the BAT requirement itself. “If they want to sue a regulatory agency, they can do so. They have simply chosen the wrong one," the court said.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Partner

Tim Lundgren is a partner in the Environmental Practice Group and chair of the firm's Water Law Specialty Area. Tim works on matters related to water quality and water supply and use, including discharge permitting and compliance, stormwater compliance, and water withdrawal. He has assisted clients with waterfront and port facilities on permitting and compliance matters both on inland waterways and on the Great Lakes, and with spill...

616/336-6750

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.