Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedureAdministrative lawClean Air ActTransportation conformityJudicial review of agency actionAPA arbitrary and capricious review42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)40 C.F.R. § 93.118(e)(4)
Facts
California submitted a SIP addressing PM-2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin, a nonattainment area, and included two sets of motor vehicle emissions budgets: baseline budgets for milestone years 2009 and 2012, and SIP-based budgets for those years plus the attainment year. EPA found the SIP-based budgets inadequate because they depended on emission-control measures not yet implemented, but found the baseline milestone-year budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes. Petitioners submitted comments and data arguing that the Basin could not attain PM-2.5 standards without additional measures and contended that this failure to show attainment invalidated all budgets. The challenged EPA action was only the adequacy determination for the milestone-year baseline budgets.
Issue
When EPA determines whether milestone-year motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes, must it consider attainment data and an approvable attainment demonstration, or may it limit its review to whether the budgets satisfy reasonable further progress requirements?
Rule
In reviewing EPA's adequacy determination for milestone-year motor vehicle emissions budgets, the court asks under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) whether EPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused its discretion, or acted contrary to law. Under 40 C.F.R. § 93.118(e)(4)(iv), milestone-year budgets need be consistent only with the requirements relevant to that submission—here, reasonable further progress, not attainment—and EPA's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations controls unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The air agency in Arizona submitted a PM-2.5 implementation plan for the Phoenix area with motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2011 and 2014, both designated as milestone years, and a separate attainment-year budget for 2017. The federal regulator found the milestone-year budgets adequate for transportation conformity because they matched the required linear emissions reductions, even though commenters argued the area still lacked enough controls to attain by 2017.
If a court reviews only the adequacy determination for the milestone-year budgets, which is the best disposition?
Explanation. The controlling rule is that, for adequacy review of milestone-year motor vehicle emissions budgets, the agency need consider only the requirement relevant to that submission. Under the conformity regulation, milestone-year budgets are judged against reasonable further progress, while attainment requirements are relevant to attainment-year budgets. A court reviewing the adequacy finding asks only whether the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused its discretion, or acted contrary to law, and it does not invalidate milestone-year budgets merely because commenters dispute eventual attainment. (Derived from Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.).)