Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
655 F. App'x 605
9th Cir.2016Background
- EPA approved revisions to California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Los Angeles–South Coast Air Basin, including an attainment demonstration for the revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS (79 Fed. Reg. 52526, Sept. 3, 2014).
- Petitioners challenged aspects of EPA’s approval; some claims were time-barred under the Clean Air Act’s 60-day review period (42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)).
- EPA had earlier required California to submit SIP revisions under a Finding of Substantial Inadequacy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(5) (78 Fed. Reg. 889, Jan. 7, 2013); that action was not challenged by petitioners.
- The disputed SIP included “new technology measures” under 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(e)(5)(B) and tonnage (aggregate emissions) commitments plus enforceable contingency commitments if new technologies failed.
- Petitioners argued the attainment deadline adjustment and the enforceability of tonnage commitments were unlawful; the court applied Chevron deference to EPA’s statutory interpretations.
- The court denied the petition in full, finding (1) deadline adjustment arguments untimely and (2) EPA’s interpretations and approval of new-technology and tonnage-commitment aspects reasonable and lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenge to EPA-approved attainment deadline is timely | Petitioners: EPA should have adjusted the approved attainment deadline under 42 U.S.C. § 7509(d) | EPA: SIP revision was required and issued under § 7410(k)(5), not § 7509(c)/(d); 60-day limit applies and was missed | Untimely — petition denied on this point |
| Whether “applicable dates” in § 7511a(e)(5)(B) exclude dates adjusted under § 7410(k)(5) | Petitioners: “Applicable dates” should not include post-adjustment dates; plan thus improper | EPA: Reasonably interprets “applicable dates” to include dates validly adjusted under § 7410(k)(5) | Court upholds EPA’s interpretation under Chevron |
| Whether tonnage (aggregate emissions) commitments in the SIP are unenforceable | Petitioners: Tonnage commitments are not enforceable obligations and therefore unlawful | EPA: Commitments are enforceable under § 7410(i) and anti‑backsliding requirements; similar commitments were upheld previously | Court finds commitments enforceable, rejects petitioners’ attempt to distinguish prior precedent |
| Whether revocation of the one-hour ozone standard removes anti‑backsliding obligations | Petitioners: Revocation undermines continued applicability of § 7410 obligations | EPA: Anti‑backsliding obligations remain; § 7410(i) continues to apply despite revocation | Court agrees anti‑backsliding and § 7410 obligations persist; supports EPA approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretation)
- Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding enforceability of materially similar tonnage commitments in California SIP)
- South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (anti‑backsliding limitations remain applicable requirements)
- Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 686 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2011) (EPA may not allow a state to delete SIP control measures that provide enforceable obligations)