Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Utah ex rel. Utah Department of Environmental Quality v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

September 3, 2014

STATE OF UTAH, on behalf of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEM, Intervenor. PACIFICORP, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEM, STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY, Intervenors

For STATE OF UTAH, on behalf of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, GINA MCCARTHY, Acting Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioners (13-9535): Scott C. Fulton, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC; Chloe H. Kolman, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC; Stephanie J. Talbert, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC.

For UTAH ASSOCIATED MUNICIPAL POWER SYSTEM, Intervenor (13-9535): Mason Baker, General Counsel, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, Salt Lake City, UT; Mary Jane Elizabeth Galvin-Wagg, Esq., Homer Michael Keller, Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, UT.

For Pacificorp Petitioner (13-9536): Michael G. Jenkins, PacifiCorp Energy, Salt Lake City, UT; E. Blaine Rawson, Ray Quinney & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, UT.

For United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent (13-9536): Eric H. Holder Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Chloe H. Kolman, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC; Stephanie J. Talbert, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC.

For GINA MCCARTHY, Acting Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent (13-9536): Chloe H. Kolman, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC; Gina McCarthy, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; Stephanie J. Talbert, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC.

For State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality And Division of Air Quality, Intervenor (13-9536): Craig W. Anderson, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT; Christian Stephens, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT.

For Utah Associated Municipal Power System, Intervenor (13-9536): Mason Baker, General Counsel, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, Salt Lake City, UT; Mary Jane Elizabeth Galvin-Wagg, Esq., Homer Michael Keller, Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, UT.

Before BACHARACH, SEYMOUR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 1258

OPINION DENYING PANEL REHEARING

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.

In a previous opinion, we dismissed Utah and PacifiCorp's petitions for review based on a lack of jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction because Utah and PacifiCorp filed their petitions after the expiration of a jurisdictional deadline. The Petitioners apply for panel rehearing, and we deny the applications.

I. The Petitioners' Earlier Arguments & Our Panel Opinion

The Clean Air Act required Utah to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Environmental Protection Agency. Utah complied, but the EPA rejected parts of the plan. The State of Utah and other aggrieved parties could obtain judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) by filing a petition within 60 days. See Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) (2012).

The State of Utah and PacifiCorp missed the deadline, prompting our court to order briefing on appellate jurisdiction in light of the 60-day deadline. Utah and PacifiCorp responded that the petitions were timely but never addressed the jurisdictional nature of the deadline.

We ultimately held that the petitions were untimely and that the defect was jurisdictional. Now, for the first time, Utah and PacifiCorp argue that the statutory deadline is not jurisdictional, complaining that the panel should have more fully explained its conclusion.

II. The Jurisdictional Nature of the 60-Day Deadline

With the benefit of the parties' newly presented arguments, we revisit whether the statutory deadline is jurisdictional. Ultimately, however, we adhere to the conclusion stated in the panel opinion: The deadline in § 7607(b)(1) is jurisdictional.

Filing deadlines can be jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. To decide which deadlines are jurisdictional, we apply a " bright-line" rule. See Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 817, 824, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013).

This rule focuses on Congress's stated intention. Id. When Congress clearly states that a deadline is jurisdictional, we regard it as jurisdictional. Id. To make its intention " clear," however, Congress need not use any particular words. Id. Thus, when we determine whether Congress has spoken clearly, we focus on the legal character of the deadline, as shown through its text, context, and historical treatment. See Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 166, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (" [T]he jurisdictional analysis must focus on the 'legal character' of the requirement, which we discerned [in Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 395, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982)]

Page 1259

by looking to the condition's text, context, and relevant historical treatment." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.