Association of Irritated Residents v. USEPA
632 F.3d 584
9th Cir.2012Background
- Petitioners challenge EPA’s partial approval of California’s 2003 SIP Revision for the South Coast nonattainment area.
- EPA approved the 2003 Attainment Plan MVEBs but disapproved the attainment demonstration; it also approved PEST-1 despite questions about enforceable commitments.
- California submitted 2003 SIP Revision after new modeling showed the 1997/1999 SIP was inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
- EPA had previously approved related SIP elements (1997/1999; 2000 amendments) but later acknowledged the need for additional reductions.
- EPA final action in 2009/2010 finalized approval of PEST-1 and partial disapproval of the attainment demonstration, triggering this petition for review.
- Overall, the petition argues EPA failed to evaluate existing SIP adequacy, failed to require TCMS, and approved a pesticide element lacking enforceable commitments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA failed to evaluate SIP adequacy after 2003 revisions. | EPA had an affirmative duty to assess whether the existing SIP remained adequate. | EPA could approve revisions without re-evaluating the entire SIP. | Yes, EPA violated the Act by failing to evaluate SIP adequacy; remand ordered. |
| Whether EPA’s approval of PEST-1 was arbitrary and capricious. | PEST-1 lacked enforceable commitments; Wells Memorandum not part of SIP. | Approval maintained status quo and satisfied enforceability. | Yes, approval was arbitrary and capricious; remand required. |
| Whether EPA failed to require transportation control measures to offset VMT growth. | TCMs were required to offset growth in emissions from VMT and to meet emissions reductions. | Aggregate emissions would decline, so TCMS were unnecessary. | Yes, EPA erred; TCMs must be required. |
| Whether EPA should have ordered a revised attainment plan after disapproving the 2003 Attainment Plan. | Disapproval triggered need for new attainment demonstration. | Discretion to review and trigger FIP/SIP calls exists but is limited. | Yes, remand to determine necessity of new attainment demonstration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. U.S. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (EPA must evaluate the whole plan as revised to meet attainment requirements)
- Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court 1975) (foundation for reviewing SIP revisions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008) (SIP adequacy and agency discretion in reviewing plans)
- 1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 265 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) (modeling inadequacy and agency duties in SIP decisions)
- United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of emissions baselines under CAA)