Roberta Delaney Gayle Hartmann v. Environmental Protection Agency
898 F.2d 687 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Air Act's statutory deadlines for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards are absolute. If a nonattainment area misses a deadline, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot administratively create a new deadline but must require the state to implement all available control measures to achieve compliance as soon as possible.
Facts:
- The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments mandated that states with 'nonattainment areas' for certain pollutants achieve compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 1982.
- In 1978, the EPA designated large portions of Maricopa and Pima counties in Arizona as nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide.
- Both Maricopa and Pima counties failed to meet the NAAQS for carbon monoxide by the December 31, 1982 deadline.
- Arizona failed in its attempt to secure a statutory extension of the deadline to 1987.
- Arizona later submitted state implementation plans (SIPs) for the counties that included three control measures: selling high-oxygen fuel in winter, reducing single-car commuting by employees of large employers, and enhanced vehicle emission testing.
- The state plans did not adopt dozens of other recommended control measures, such as expanding mass transit, instituting road user fees, imposing parking controls, or creating auto-free zones.
Procedural Posture:
- Arizona submitted revised state implementation plans (SIPs) in 1979 for Maricopa and Pima counties, which the EPA conditionally approved in 1983.
- After Arizona failed to satisfy the conditions or meet the 1982 attainment deadline, the EPA rejected subsequent plans aiming for a 1987 deadline, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit in a prior case.
- Residents of the counties (petitioners) sued the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The district court ordered the EPA to either approve adequate SIPs from Arizona or promulgate its own federal implementation plans (FIPs) by a certain date.
- Arizona submitted new SIPs, which the EPA approved on August 10, 1988.
- Residents of Maricopa and Pima counties (petitioners) filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the EPA's approval of the 1988 plans.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the EPA have the authority under the Clean Air Act to grant a three-year extension for compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards to areas that have already missed an absolute statutory deadline?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, J.
No. The EPA lacks the authority to create a new compliance deadline for states that have missed a clear and absolute statutory deadline set by Congress. When a deadline passes, the law does not create a 'statutory gap' for the agency to fill; rather, it reinforces the deadline's firmness. The court found that Congress intended the 1982 deadline to be absolute to force progress, leaving any necessary adjustments or 'legislative relief' to a future Congress, not the EPA. Citing its own precedent in Abramowitz v. EPA, the court held the deadline to be 'clear and unambiguous' and stated that the EPA cannot 'extract leeway from a statute that Congress explicitly intended to be strict.' The only reasonable interpretation is that once the deadline is missed, the area must attain the standards 'as soon as possible with every available control measure.' The EPA's approval was also deemed arbitrary and capricious because it approved plans with insufficient control measures, failed to require mandatory contingency and conformity plans as per its own guidelines, and improperly placed the burden on others to prove that additional measures would speed up attainment, rather than on Arizona to prove they were not needed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the EPA's discretion in enforcing the Clean Air Act, establishing that Congressionally-mandated deadlines are absolute and cannot be administratively extended. By rejecting the 'statutory gap' theory, the court reinforces the separation of powers, leaving policy adjustments to Congress rather than the implementing agency. The ruling establishes a stringent standard for delinquent nonattainment areas, requiring them to adopt 'all available control measures' for attainment 'as soon as possible,' thereby accelerating environmental compliance. This precedent strengthens the power of citizen suits and holds agencies accountable for following their own published rules and guidelines without arbitrary waivers.
Unlock the full brief for Roberta Delaney Gayle Hartmann v. Environmental Protection Agency