## Facts

- The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments require each state to develop a state implementation plan (SIP), subject to EPA approval, to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards, including for ozone.
- Congress identified a multi-state “Northeast Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) (12 northeastern states and the District of Columbia) where ozone problems were aggravated by transported pollution.
- Each OTR jurisdiction had a SIP that EPA had approved under CAA § 110.
- After receiving recommendations from the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), EPA issued a final rule declaring the OTR jurisdictions’ SIPs “substantially inadequate” to meet CAA requirements regarding transported ozone.
- As the required remedy, EPA ordered each OTR jurisdiction to revise its SIP to implement the OTC Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV) program, which was essentially California’s Low Emission Vehicle vehicle-emissions standards and was more stringent than federal standards.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia and three automobile-industry associations petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit, arguing EPA lacked statutory authority to force states to adopt California-style vehicle standards and raising constitutional objections based on federalism.
- Several OTR states, municipalities, and environmental organizations intervened in support of EPA’s rule.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA, using CAA § 110’s SIP-call authority and CAA § 184’s provisions for the OTR, could require OTR jurisdictions to revise their SIPs by adopting a specific control measure: the OTC/California LEV program.
2. Whether EPA’s mandate conflicted with the CAA’s vehicle-emissions structure—particularly CAA §§ 177 and 202—which addresses California standards and when other states may use them.
3. Whether the court needed to decide petitioners’ constitutional claims (including federalism/commandeering arguments) if the rule failed on statutory grounds.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that EPA lacked statutory authority under CAA §§ 110 and 184 to require the OTR jurisdictions to adopt the OTC LEV program as a SIP revision.
- The court concluded that the CAA’s framework leaves the selection of specific pollution-control measures largely to the states and does not give EPA a clear grant to dictate California-style vehicle standards for the region through a SIP inadequacy finding.
- The court vacated EPA’s final rule requiring adoption of the OTC LEV program.
- Because the rule was invalid on statutory grounds, the court did not reach the constitutional challenges.

## Legal Principles

- A SIP is a state plan: EPA may review SIPs for compliance and may require a state to revise a SIP found “substantially inadequate,” but that general authority does not, without clear statutory direction, permit EPA to command a particular control strategy.
- Statutory provisions addressing a subject in a specific way limit reliance on more general grants of authority; EPA cannot treat general SIP provisions as permission to impose a vehicle-emissions program that Congress regulated through more detailed sections.
- CAA § 177 creates a state option—subject to specified conditions—for adopting California’s vehicle-emissions standards; EPA cannot turn that state option into a federal requirement through SIP-call mechanisms.
- Courts generally avoid constitutional rulings when a case can be resolved on statutory grounds, particularly where an agency reading would press into areas of state regulatory control without a clear statement from Congress.

## Conclusion

In *Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency*, the D.C. Circuit set aside EPA’s attempt to require the Northeast Ozone Transport Region jurisdictions to adopt the OTC/California LEV vehicle-emissions program as a mandatory SIP revision, holding that CAA §§ 110 and 184 did not authorize EPA to dictate that specific control measure and that the CAA’s vehicle-emissions provisions (including the state-choice structure in § 177 and the federal framework in § 202) cut against EPA’s reading; the court therefore vacated the rule without reaching the constitutional claims.


Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 108 F.3d 1397 (1997)