Coalition for Clean Air v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
971 F.2d 219 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 do not relieve the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its pre-existing, mandatory duty under § 110(c)(1)(B) to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for an area where it had previously disapproved a State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Facts:
- California's South Coast Air Basin has historically had the worst air quality in the United States, particularly for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO).
- Under the Clean Air Act, states must submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). If a SIP is inadequate, the EPA must create a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
- In 1972, the EPA disapproved major portions of California's SIP for the South Coast.
- Over the next decade and a half, California submitted multiple revised SIPs, including one in 1982 which acknowledged that the South Coast would fail to attain NAAQS by the 1987 statutory deadline even if fully implemented.
- In 1984, the EPA approved some control measures in the state's plan but deferred making a final determination on whether the plan as a whole would achieve attainment by the deadline.
- Following a court order invalidating its 1984 partial approval, the EPA formally disapproved the South Coast SIPs for ozone and CO in January 1988.
- This 1988 disapproval triggered the EPA's mandatory statutory duty under the then-existing Clean Air Act to promulgate FIPs for the South Coast.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1988, the Coalition for Clean Air and the Sierra Club (appellants) filed a citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel the EPA (appellee) to promulgate FIPs for the South Coast.
- In March 1989, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, approved by the district court, which obligated the EPA to propose and promulgate FIPs on an expeditious schedule.
- After Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA filed a motion in the district court to vacate the settlement agreement and dismiss the case.
- The district court granted the EPA's motion, concluding that the 1990 Amendments relieved the EPA of its obligation under the agreement.
- The Coalition for Clean Air and Sierra Club appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 relieve the Environmental Protection Agency of its pre-existing statutory obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan for California's South Coast Air Basin after disapproving the state's implementation plan in 1988?
Opinions:
Majority - William A. Norris
No, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 did not relieve the EPA of its obligation. The plain language of the amended statute, § 110(c)(1)(B), imposes a current duty on the EPA to promulgate FIPs based on its 1988 disapproval. The court reasoned that the statute's use of the present tense verb 'disapproves' does not limit its application to only future disapprovals; rather, it applies to any disapproval, past or present, that triggers the agency's duty. The court rejected the EPA's argument that enforcing this duty would create an 'anomaly' with the new requirements of the 1990 Amendments, noting that the federal-state partnership allows the state to submit revisions to the FIP to incorporate new measures. Finally, the court refused to grant Chevron deference to the EPA's interpretation, as the statutory language is clear and the agency's current position contradicts its earlier representations to Congress, where it argued that the very language eventually enacted would force it to complete the FIPs.
Dissenting - Noonan
Yes, the 1990 Amendments relieved the EPA of its prior obligation. The dissent argued that Congress repealed the old § 110(c) and replaced it with a new, future-looking statutory scheme. The 1990 Amendments established entirely new criteria, procedures, and deadlines for attainment (extending to 2010 for ozone), making the basis for the 1988 disapproval and the subsequent settlement agreement obsolete. The dissent contended that enforcing an obligation based on a repealed law and outdated standards would 'make nonsense' of the comprehensive new framework enacted by Congress. Furthermore, the dissent argued that forcing immediate federal action would subvert the Clean Air Act's core principle that air pollution control is the 'primary responsibility of state and local governments.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an agency's mandatory statutory duties are not automatically extinguished by subsequent legislative amendments unless Congress explicitly terminates them. It prevents agencies like the EPA from using legislative updates as a 'reset button' to escape overdue enforcement obligations arising from past failures. The ruling reinforces a strict textualist approach to statutory interpretation, prioritizing the plain language of the law over agency convenience or claims of structural inconsistency. This precedent strengthens the hand of citizen suits in forcing agency action and ensures that lengthy delays in environmental compliance cannot be easily excused by intervening changes in the law.
