Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
632 F.3d 584
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Petitioners challenge EPA's final action approving in part and disapproving in part revisions to California's SIP for ozone in the South Coast nonattainment area.
- South Coast is classified as Extreme nonattainment; revisions include the 2003 Attainment Plan, PEST-1, and a no-TCM transportation measure demonstration.
- EPA proposed to approve non-withdrawn control measures but disapproved the attainment demonstration (and MVEBs) based on withdrawn commitments; final action followed in 2009.
- The Wells Memorandum was deemed not part of the 1997/1999 SIP after Warmerdam; EPA's approval of PEST-1 raised enforceability concerns.
- EPA was urged to evaluate the entire SIP for adequacy in light of new modeling; petitioners argued EPA failed to address SIP adequacy and to trigger sanctions, FIP, or SIP call.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA's duty to evaluate SIP adequacy after partial disapproval | Petitioners assert EPA arbitrarily failed to assess the existing SIP's adequacy post-disapproval. | EPA contends its duties were limited to the disapproved revisions and did not require reevaluation of the whole SIP. | EPA's failure to evaluate the existing SIP was arbitrary and capricious; remand for further action. |
| Validity of EPA's approval of PEST-1 under enforceability requirements | PEST-1 lacks enforceable commitments and violates the Act. | Petitioners lack standing; approval maintained status quo. | EPA's approval of PEST-1 was arbitrary and remanded for reconsideration of enforceable commitments. |
| EPA's failure to require transportation control measures (TCMs) | Statutory baseline should measure growth in emissions from VMT, not aggregate emissions. | EPA's interpretation reads 'growth in emissions' as aggregate emissions growth baselined to VMT. | Statutory language and history show TCMs are required to offset VMT growth; petition granted on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (must evaluate whether revisions can meet attainment requirements)
- Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1975) (plan revisions and related requirements analyzed under statutory framework)
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. 438 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (statutory interpretation and the principle that silence in one clause matters)
- United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (statutory interpretation and baseline concepts for VMT-related emissions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008) (SIP adequacy and agency discretion in finding substantial inadequacy)
- Citizens Against Ruining the Env't v. EPA, 535 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2008) (agency discretion in SIP adequacy findings)
- 1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 265 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) (modeling adequacy and late-stage revisions considerations)
- Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (see above (repeated for emphasis))