The NAM filed suit against the EPA 4/10/98 arguing that an EPA rule improperly granted Indian tribes authority to act under the Clean Air Act. On 5/5/00, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s 2/2/98 Final Air Quality Planning and Management Rule for Indian Tribes ("Rule"). In April, 2001, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.The Rule provides that the EPA will delegate to any federally recognized Indian Tribe, upon receipt of a properly completed tribal application, authority to implement federal Clean Air Act ("CAA") programs over lands located within the exterior boundaries of what EPA refers to as "Indian Country", as that term relates to a tribe. "Indian Country" thus includes all lands within the boundaries of a traditionally federally recognized Indian reservation (including privately owned, non-Indian lands), lands within the boundaries of off-reservation areas held in trust for a tribe by the federal government, and other lands over which a tribe can demonstrate that it has jurisdiction. Under the Rule, off-reservation "trust lands" include those lands purchased or acquired by a tribe or tribal member and placed into trust--including lands acquired for commercial and gaming casino purposes. The EPA’s definition of Indian Country conflicts with the far more restrictive definition of "reservation" used by Congress, the federal courts and even the EPA in other federal laws, cases and regulations governing tribal affairs.
Pursuant to the Rule, tribes may also "redesignate", as "Class I" areas for air quality management purposes, lands located outside of traditional reservation boundaries. Under current federal law, only lands within such boundaries may be redesignated as Class I. Redesignation to Class I status invokes the most stringent federal air quality protection standards relating to the siting of new or modified manufacturing facilities in areas sometimes located several hundred miles away from the Class I area.
Other features of the Rule include the elimination of the Title V requirement for review in state court of adverse tribal operating permit decisions and permitting delays and the insulation of tribes from citizen suits for asserted violations of the law. Moreover, upon approval of a tribal authority application under the Rule, state air permitting agencies will be stripped of their own authority to issue or renew installation, operation and other air permits to industrial sources located or seeking to locate within Indian Country, and existing state air permits issued to such sources will be invalidated.
Prior to issuance of the Rule, tribes, like states, were required to affirmatively demonstrate the public health, welfare and environmental bases for their assertion of environmental authority over lands that are clearly otherwise within their jurisdiction. That is no longer the case. The Court’s decision now allows the EPA (an administrative agency), in conjunction with tribes, to redraw state boundaries for regulatory purposes and to dispossess state permit holders of substantial rights. The EPA asserts that other federal environmental laws similarly allow EPA to delegate to a tribe authority to regulate other environmental media within "Indian Country".
The Petitioners in the case included, among others, the State of Michigan, several Arizona and New Mexico utility companies, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Michigan Chemical Council, the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce and the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin, Inc. It is their position, among others, that decisions to redraw state boundaries for regulatory purposes must be made within the framework of established federal law and the United States Constitution, with full public participation, and not at the whim of federal administrative agencies. For more information regarding the Rule, contact Brian J. Renaud of Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C., at (248) 723-0356, counsel in the case for NAM, AF&PA, the Michigan Chemical Council, the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. and the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and Wisconsin, Inc. Case decided on 5/5/00.