Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation
770 F.3d 1260
9th Cir.2014Background
- NRDC appeals district court’s summary judgment ruling favoring Defendants on CAA and NEPA claims related to the SR-47 Expressway project connecting the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach to I-405.
- The project would be an elevated 1.7-mile expressway intended to reduce truck traffic, improve freeway integration, and mitigate port-area air pollution.
- Defendants conducted a PM2.5 hot-spot analysis using a qualitative approach and relied on a surrogate monitor located about five miles from the project area.
- An EIS was prepared under NEPA; a Health Risk Assessment and other studies were added in response to comments, with final EIS issued May 2009 and ROD in August 2009.
- NRDC filed suit in November 2009; the district court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on June 29, 2012; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'any area' in the CAA hotspot rule require nearby, immediate-area PM2.5 data? | NRDC argues 'any area' means the project’s immediate vicinity. | Defendants rely on government-wide interpretations permitting surrogate analyses within the nonattainment/maintenance area. | Ambiguous term; conforming interpretations permit surrogate data analyses. |
| Are EPA/DOT interpretations of the hot-spot rules entitled to deference? | NRDC contends agency interpretations are not binding or properly adopted. | The Conformity Guidance represents a valid agency interpretation, deserving Chevron/Auer deference. | EPA/DOT interpretations are entitled to deference; adopted guidance governs. |
| Did the NEPA review provide a hard look and adequate analysis? | NRDC argues the EIS inadequately addresses PM2.5 health effects and updated standards. | EIS discussed updated standards, included Health Risk Assessment, and analyzed potential health impacts with mitigation. | EIS complied with NEPA; substantial hard look and adequate discussion. |
| Was the Conformity Determination arbitrary or capricious? | NRDC challenges the use of a surrogate monitor and methodology. | Conformity Guidance permits surrogate data and comparison methods under qualitative analysis. | Conformity Determination not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (agency interpretation of statutes may be binding when regulatory framework contemplates it)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretations of their own regulations are controlling unless plainly wrong)
- Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (plain meaning with ambiguity can fail to resolve regulatory scope)
- City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (hard-look NEPA standard; defer to agency when appropriate)
- Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 562 U.S. 195 (2011) (agency interpretation of its own regulation enjoys Auer deference)
- Audubon Naturalist Society v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Md. 2007) (conformity guidance treated as valid interpretation supporting surrogate hotspot analyses)
- High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004) (informal agency interpretations not entitled to Chevron deference; context matters)