786 F.3d 1169
9th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioners (environmental and community groups) challenged EPA’s approval of California’s State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone in the San Joaquin Valley under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
- California’s attainment strategies relied in part on state-adopted mobile-source standards ("waiver measures") that had been approved by EPA under California’s unique waiver authority but were not expressly incorporated into the federally enforceable SIPs.
- Petitioners argued (1) reliance on non‑incorporated waiver measures violated the CAA, (2) some other state measures in the Plans were mere unenforceable goals, (3) EPA unlawfully approved the ozone plan lacking certain enforceable transportation control measures, and (4) NRDC v. EPA undermined EPA’s particulate matter rule authority.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether EPA’s approvals were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law and applied Chevron and Auer deference principles where relevant.
- Court held EPA violated the CAA by approving the Plans without including the state waiver measures on which the Plans relied, but rejected challenges to (a) three specific “non‑waiver” measures and (b) the contention that California’s aggregate enforceable commitments were mere aspirational goals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SIPs must include state waiver (California mobile-source) measures relied on to meet NAAQS | California relied on waiver measures but did not include them in the SIP; omitting them prevents federal and citizen enforcement | EPA: longstanding policy and CAA savings clause let EPA treat previously approved waiver measures as not required to be re‑included in the SIP | Court: CAA §7410(a) mandates SIPs include all control measures on which compliance relies; EPA violated the CAA by approving Plans without those waiver measures |
| Whether EPA erred by not requiring inclusion of three specific non‑waiver measures (chip reflash, diesel particulate rule, solid waste vehicle rule) | Petitioners: these state rules were necessary to meet attainment | EPA: chip reflash invalidated; other two measures provided de minimis reductions so inclusion not necessary | Court: chip reflash issue properly handled; EPA’s de minimis determinations reasonable; no CAA violation in excluding the three measures |
| Whether California’s commitments to propose/adopt measures and achieve aggregate emission reductions are unenforceable aspirational goals | Petitioners: commitments lack specificity, allow shifting among measures, and are practically unenforceable | EPA/District: commitments use mandatory language, set specific reduction targets/deadlines, and are enforceable once adopted into SIP; administrative and public records provide necessary information | Court: commitments are enforceable (not mere targets); EPA did not act arbitrarily in approving them |
| Whether citizen enforcement and EPA enforcement would be frustrated by allowing non‑incorporated measures to underpin SIP reductions | Petitioners: omission creates enforcement gap—citizens and EPA cannot enforce state standards not in SIP | EPA: citizens can enforce federal baselines and states can enforce their own rules; savings clause supports practice | Court: rejecting EPA’s interpretation; omission frustrates CAA private right and EPA’s enforcement role; SIP must include measures necessary for federal compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency statutory interpretation framework)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
- Jensen Family Farms, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 644 F.3d 934 (discussing federal preemption of mobile-source standards and California waiver)
- El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (limits on enforceability of baseline inventories)
- BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (upholding enforceable commitments in SIPs)
- Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm'n, 366 F.3d 692 (distinguishing unenforceable targets from binding commitments)
- NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. decision concerning EPA’s particulate matter implementation rule)