Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
671 F.3d 955
9th Cir.2012Background
- EPA approved the 2004 San Joaquin Valley SIP for extreme-ozone nonattainment; Petitioners challenged the EPA action under the APA and CAA on grounds of data accuracy and timing.
- Petitioners argued the 2004 SIP relied on outdated mobile-source emissions data (EMFAC2002) that were superseded by EMFAC2007.
- EMFAC2007 data, available before EPA’s 2010 approval, showed substantially higher NOx emissions, undermining the 2004 SIP’s accuracy.
- EPA relied on Seitz Memo guidance and prior practice to deem outdated data acceptable if data were current at SIP submission, not at approval.
- The 2004 SIP’s revision history included amendments in 2005, 2006, and 2008, culminating in the 2010 EPA approval, just before the 2010 attainment deadline.
- The court held that EPA’s 2010 approval based on 2004 data was arbitrary and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s approval was arbitrary and capricious | Sierra Club argues data were outdated at approval | EPA relied on data current at SIP submission per Seitz Memo | Yes, arbitrary and remanded |
| Whether data met CAA §172(c)(3)’s accuracy/current requirement | Mobile data were not current/accurate by 2010 | Data were current/accurate when submitted | Yes, not satisfied; remand warranted |
| Whether EPA failed to reconcile EMFAC2002 and EMFAC2007 differences | EPA ignored 2007 disparities | EPA followed prior practice not to require updating | Yes, failure to reconcile; remand warranted |
| Whether EPA should have considered updated data under A.I.R. guidance | New data undermined SIP’s adequacy | EPA not obligated to reevaluate after submission | Yes, agency acted arbitrarily by not evaluating the new data; remand warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigil v. Leavitt, 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (jurisdiction/standard for reviewing EPA actions under APA)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review requires rational explanation)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (addressing use of MOBILE models in SIP approvals)
- Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) (duty to evaluate existing SIPs when new data suggests inadequacy)
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (limits Chevron deference where agency did not exercise rulemaking authority)
- United States v. Vigil, 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for agency action under APA)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (requirement of a rational connection between facts and choice)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1944) (persuasive weight of agency interpretations not carried by Chevron)