Sierra Club Wasatch Clean Air Coalition v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, State of Utah, Intervenor

Citations: 99 F.3d 1551; 27 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20458; 44 ERC (BNA) 1033; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29487Docket: 95-9541

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; November 13, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Sierra Club and Wasatch Clean Air Coalition challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to exempt Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, from certain Clean Air Act (CAA) nonattainment area requirements without redesignating them as attainment areas. Petitioners argue that this decision is unreasonable and contradicts the CAA's plain meaning, seeking to overturn it under the Chevron doctrine. The Tenth Circuit Court reviewed the administrative record and arguments, ultimately upholding the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and denying the Petitioners' request to set aside the EPA's July 18, 1995, decision regarding ozone standards for the Counties.

The CAA establishes a framework for air quality management, requiring the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants like ozone. Areas failing to meet these standards are designated as "nonattainment" and must create State Implementation Plans to achieve compliance. Salt Lake and Davis Counties were initially designated as nonattainment areas in 1977 due to ozone violations and were later reclassified as "moderate nonattainment areas" following the 1990 CAA amendments, which imposed additional requirements for progress toward meeting NAAQS. The court's ruling confirms the EPA's authority and interpretation related to these designations and requirements.

A plan must be submitted requiring a fifteen percent reduction in volatile organic compounds to ensure compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by a statutory deadline, as mandated by 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i). Section 7502(c)(9) further necessitates that nonattainment areas provide "contingency measures" in case they do not achieve or make reasonable progress towards NAAQS. By summer 1992, monitoring data indicated that Salt Lake and Davis Counties had achieved the ozone standard, with evidence of compliance dating back to 1991. Consequently, Utah applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993 for redesignation as an "attainment" area under 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3), and the EPA is currently processing this request.

Pending redesignation, the EPA issued a final rule stating that since the Counties had attained NAAQS, the requirements for the fifteen percent reduction plan and attainment demonstration were not applicable, thereby exempting Utah from Clean Air Act sanctions for failing to submit revisions. Petitioners contest this ruling, arguing that the requirements remain mandatory until formal redesignation occurs. The main legal issue is whether the EPA's determination that sections 7502(c)(9) and 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i) do not apply to areas achieving the ozone standard but not yet redesignated is valid. Under the Chevron framework, the court will first assess if the statute is unambiguous regarding this issue. If Congress's intent is clear, it will be upheld; if not, the court will evaluate if the EPA's interpretation is a reasonable construction of the law. Petitioners argue that the EPA's exemption contradicts the Clean Air Act's plain meaning and should be invalidated under the first step of the Chevron analysis, but the court disagrees.

Petitioners argue for a literal interpretation of individual provisions in 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i), specifically regarding a state's obligation to submit a plan for reducing volatile organic compound emissions by at least 15 percent from baseline levels. However, the provision includes a broader requirement for annual emissions reductions necessary for achieving the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone, framed under the concept of "reasonable further progress." Although the Petitioners suggest some ambiguity in Congressional intent, the focus shifts to whether the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of these provisions is permissible.

Petitioners criticize the EPA's interpretation as unreasonable, alleging it creates internal inconsistencies and undermines the preventive measures of the Clean Air Act. The EPA justifies its position by stating that the purpose of the 15 percent reduction and other requirements is to ensure progress toward achieving the ozone standard. If an area can demonstrate compliance through three years of monitoring, the additional requirements lose significance, as costly measures beyond compliance would be unnecessary.

The Petitioners also highlight inconsistencies in the EPA's application of different requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, arguing that all should be uniformly enforced until an area is officially redesignated as attaining status. They contend that each requirement aims to reduce emissions to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard both presently and in the future.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently opposed an all-or-nothing approach regarding nonattainment plan requirements. Following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA published a General Preamble clarifying that certain nonattainment plan requirements do not apply when an area has demonstrated it meets air quality standards and when those requirements are linked to the concept of reasonable further progress. The EPA reasoned that if an area has already achieved National Ambient Air Quality Standards, demonstrating reasonable further progress is unnecessary, as any future air quality protection falls under other provisions of the Clean Air Act.

The EPA's decision to exempt Salt Lake and Davis Counties from ozone-specific nonattainment plan requirements aligns with its interpretation of the 1990 amendments, as the requirements in question relate to reasonable further progress towards attainment. If a moderate ozone nonattainment area has met the ozone standard, it is illogical to mandate that the state show reasonable progress toward attainment. However, some provisions of the ozone nonattainment area requirements, such as those related to control technology and vehicle maintenance plans, remain essential regardless of attainment status.

The EPA's interpretation does not create inconsistencies within the program, and the language of the relevant provisions supports its longstanding interpretation. The petitioners' strict reading of the nonattainment area requirements lacks the necessary textual basis to challenge the EPA's pragmatic approach.

Additionally, petitioners claim that the redesignation process outlined in 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E) is the sole method for redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment status, arguing that the EPA lacks authority to make attainment determinations outside this formal process. The EPA maintains that it can redesignate areas in accordance with the specified provisions, which involve more than merely confirming that an area has achieved the relevant air quality standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must undertake several actions regarding the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality improvement, including: (1) full approval of the SIP, (2) confirmation that air quality improvements stem from permanent, enforceable emission reductions, (3) approval of a maintenance plan under 42 U.S.C. 7505a, and (4) verification that the State meets all applicable SIP requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7410, particularly for nonattainment areas. The EPA clarified that its exemption of the Counties from certain requirements does not equate to redesignation to attainment status; the complete redesignation process involves more than just demonstrating compliance with air quality standards. All criteria outlined in 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E) must be fulfilled for redesignation approval. If the Counties violate ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards before redesignation, the exemption will be revoked, necessitating plan revisions under 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9) and 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i), and could result in a shift from moderate to serious nonattainment status under 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2), imposing stricter requirements. The EPA has effectively shown that it is not bypassing the redesignation process, and the State of Utah is incentivized to complete it. Additionally, concerns raised by Petitioners regarding the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act and its potential impact on public health have been found unconvincing. The EPA maintains that the existing air quality measures and federal requirements have led to consistent attainment of the ozone standard for over five years, and if these measures are insufficient in the future, the EPA will mandate further controls. The current exemption for the Counties is seen as a temporary suspension of certain requirements as long as air quality standards are met.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, have met the primary ozone standard, which is designed to safeguard public health. The EPA clarified that its actions do not reduce existing requirements that allowed for this attainment but instead suspend additional pollution reduction requirements that exceed those necessary for compliance. The EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act aims to maintain the health-based ozone standard while avoiding unnecessary emission control costs. Consequently, the EPA's "Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard" is upheld, and the Petition for Review is denied. 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is set at 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than three times over a three-year period at any monitoring station. According to Section 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act, states must submit a plan for reducing volatile organic compound emissions by at least 15% from baseline levels within six years, accounting for growth in emissions since 1990. The improvement in air quality is attributed to state air quality plans from the 1980s that reduced vehicle emissions and applied control technologies to ozone precursor sources. 

The EPA's direct final rule typically takes effect without further action unless adverse comments are received. In this instance, comments from the Sierra Club and another party prompted the EPA to withdraw the direct final rule and issue a final rule after considering the feedback. States that fail to meet Clean Air Act requirements face federal sanctions, including stricter conditions for new or modified pollution sources and potential denial of federal highway funding. The sanctions process can be paused if the state rectifies the deficiency or if the area is redesignated as meeting the standard.

The definition pertains to part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act, specifically referencing 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aims for maintenance plans to prevent violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to population growth over a twenty-year period. For a redesignation to attainment, the EPA requires: (1) full approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), (2) confirmation that air quality improvements stem from permanent, enforceable emission reductions, (3) full approval of maintenance plans under 42 U.S.C. 7505a, and (4) compliance with applicable requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7410 and part D for nonattainment areas. States must adopt maintenance plans ensuring NAAQS compliance for at least ten years post-redesignation and must revise these plans eight years later. The EPA clarifies that exemptions for certain requirements do not equate to redesignation. All criteria under 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E) must be met for approval. If counties violate ozone NAAQS before redesignation, exemptions will be revoked, necessitating plan revisions, and could result in an upgrade from moderate to serious nonattainment status, imposing stricter requirements. The EPA's actions do not circumvent the redesignation process, and the argument that its interpretation of the Clean Air Act is unreasonable is dismissed, as it aims to protect public health.

Petitioners express concern that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not safeguarding future compliance with ozone standards, creating uncertainty regarding air quality protections. However, the argument is dismissed, as the relevant provisions focus on ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting current ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards rather than future nonattainment scenarios. The existing air quality control measures in the Utah State Implementation Plan, along with federal requirements, have successfully maintained ozone standards for over five years. If these measures fail to prevent future violations, the EPA is prepared to mandate additional controls.

The EPA's decision to exempt the Counties from certain nonattainment requirements is characterized as a temporary suspension, contingent on ongoing compliance with the standards. The EPA counters the Petitioners' claims about future ozone violations, noting that the Counties have met the primary ozone standard designed to protect public health, and that the suspension does not lessen existing requirements that facilitated this attainment.

The conclusion asserts that the EPA has appropriately interpreted the Clean Air Act, balancing the goal of maintaining health-based ozone standards with avoiding unnecessary emission control costs. Consequently, the court upholds the EPA's "Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah," and denies the Petition for Review. Additionally, it references the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, which is set at 0.12 ppm, and outlines requirements for emissions reductions in moderate areas under the Clean Air Act.

Ozone formation occurs through the interaction of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sunlight, with precursor pollutants emanating from petroleum facilities, combustion sources, petroleum-fueled engines, and biogenic sources. A direct final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes effect without further action unless adverse comments are received. In this instance, comments from the Sierra Club and another entity prompted the EPA to withdraw its direct final rule and issue a final rule addressing those comments. States not meeting Clean Air Act requirements face federal sanctions, which can include stricter regulations for new or modified pollution sources and restrictions on federal highway funding. The EPA can impose sanctions eighteen months after determining a state has not submitted necessary State Implementation Plan components, with the "sanctions clock" pausing if the deficiency is rectified or if the area is redesignated to attainment. This definition pertains to part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act, specifically regarding maintenance plans that aim to ensure that population growth and changes in a redesignated area over twenty years do not result in violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.