Public Citizen v. Department of Transp.
Citation | 316 F.3d 1002 |
Decision Date | 16 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-71249.,No. 02-70986.,02-70986.,02-71249. |
Parties | PUBLIC CITIZEN; Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto and Truck Drivers, Local 70; California Labor Federation; California Trucking Association; Environmental Law Foundation; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioners, Natural Resources Defense Council; Planning and Conservation League, Petitioners-Intervenors, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Nicholas R. Walsh, Respondents. International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto and Truck Drivers, Local 70; California Labor Federation; California Trucking Association; Environmental Law Foundation; Public Citizen, Petitioners, Natural Resources Defense Council; Planning and Conservation League, Petitioners-Intervenors, v. U.S. Department of TRansportation; Federal Motor CArrier Safety Administration; Joseph M. Clapp; Nicholas R. Walsh, Respondents. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Patrick J. Coughlin, Randi D. Bandman, and Stanley S. Mallison, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, San Francisco, CA; William S. Lerach and Patrick W. Daniels, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, San Diego, CA; Albert H. Meyerhoff, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, Los Angeles, CA; and Charles S. Crandall, San Luis Obispo, CA, for all petitioners.
Stephen P. Berzon and Jonathan Weissglass, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, San Francisco, CA, for petitioners International Brotherhood of Teamsters, California Labor Federation, and Environmental Law Foundation.
Patrick J. Szymanski, General Counsel, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, DC, for petitioner International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
David Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Oakland, CA, for petitioner Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto and Truck Drivers, Local 70.
David Vladeck, Public Citizen, Washington, DC, for petitioner Public Citizen.
Adriana Quintero Somaini, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA; and Gail Ruderman Feuer, Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioners-intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council and Planning and Conservation League.
Kirk K. Van Tine, General Counsel, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel, Peter J. Plocki, and David R. Kock, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC; Judith A. Rutledge, Chief Counsel, and Michael J. Falk, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, DC; Kelly A. Johnson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Andrew C. Mergen, David C. Shilton, and John L. Smeltzer, Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for the respondents.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of CA, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Theodora Berger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan L. Durbin and Edward H. Ochoa, Deputy Attorneys General, Sacramento, CA, for amicus curiae the People of the State of California ex rel. Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
Margaret N. Strand, Bruce R. Parker, and Lindsay B. Meyer, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, Washington, DC; and Beth L. Law, ATA Litigation Center, Inc., for amicus curiae ATA Litigation Center, Inc.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. TRAN Nos. FMCSA-98-3297, FMCSA-98-3298, FMCSA-98-3299, FMCSA-01-10886, FMCSA-01-11060.
Before D.W. NELSON, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners1 challenge the Department of Transportation's failure to conduct the requisite environmental analyses prior to promulgating three regulations, the combined effect of which will permit Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate within the United States beyond the current limited border zones, thus fulfilling the United States' obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Upon completion of a preliminary Environmental Assessment for two of the three regulations, the Department of Transportation decided that there was no need for further environmental analysis. Petitioners claim that the Department of Transportation's failure to prepare an in-depth Environmental Impact Statement for all three regulations violates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and that its further failure to conduct a "conformity determination" to ensure that the regulations do not disrupt applicable State Implementation Plans violates the Clean Air Act. Although we agree with the importance of the United States' compliance with its treaty obligations with its southern neighbor, Mexico, such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United States law. Because we conclude that the Department of Transportation acted without regard to well-established United States environmental laws, we grant the petitions.
Before proceeding to the regulations at issue, it is useful to examine the legal and regulatory context in which they were promulgated. These regulations can only be considered against the historical backdrop of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970) ( )("NEPA"), the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q ("CAA"), and the North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, U.S.-Can.-Mex., 32 I.L.M. 289 (chs.1-9), 32 I.L.M. 605 (chs.10-22) (1993) ("NAFTA").
On January 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed NEPA into law. Although various state and federal environmental measures had been in place for decades, this statute marked the first nationwide comprehensive approach to regulating the interaction between Americans and their environment. Prompted by a series of environmental crises in the late 1960s, NEPA's sweeping reach reflected Congress's conviction that "our Nation's present state of knowledge, our established public policies, and our existing governmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing environmental problems and crises the Nation faces." S.Rep. No. 91-296, at 4 (1969).
Such broad policy creation was also reflected in the statute's first section, containing the congressional declaration of purpose:
The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.
42 U.S.C. § 4321. To accomplish these ends, Congress imposed extensive procedural requirements on government action affecting the environment. Paramount among these were the requirements that all federal agencies shall, "to the fullest extent possible":
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environment;
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures ... which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
Id. § 4332(2). Congress further directed that, again "to the fullest extent possible," "the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter." Id. § 4332(1). This unequivocal command has guided the United States' environmental policy for more than thirty years, and pervades every aspect of government decisionmaking.
Federal air quality legislation dates back to at least the mid-1950s, and the CAA itself to 1963, Pub.L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 393, but it was the substantial amendment in 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713, that gave the Act its modern, far-reaching scope. The Act was amended again to further broaden its reach in 1977, Pub.L No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 749, and in 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. Before the 1970 Amendments, there existed no federal air pollution standards, nor mandatory enforcement mechanisms; federal officials could only encourage states to develop air-quality enforcement programs. All this was dramatically altered by the 1970 Amendments, which mandated national air quality standards and deadlines for their attainment. Pub.L. No. 91-604, § 4, 84 Stat. at 1678-89. These amendments also created an innovative federal-state partnership structure whereby states were to develop individual "implementation plans" to attain compliance with federal standards, and the newly created Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") was charged with evaluating, overseeing, and enforcing state compliance with these plans. Id. The 1970 Amendments specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California v. Bernhardt
...factor, or there is a substantial dispute [about] the size, nature, or effect of the major Federal action." Pub. Citizen v. Dep't of Transp. , 316 F.3d 1002, 1027 (9th Cir. 2003), rev'd on other grounds , 541 U.S. 752, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004) (citation and internal quotation m......
-
Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
...15, 2004, appearing at 361 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2004) is amended as follows: Page 3151, lines 1-2: delete "See Public Citizen v. Dep't of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1014 (9th Cir.2003)." Page 3164, line 7: replace "dock" with Page 3167, lines 6-14: replace "With the dock extension, though, the B......
-
People ex rel Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
...designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of his standing.'" Public Citizen v. Dep't of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1015 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir.2001)). A plaintiff alleging a procedural inj......
-
Border Power Plant Working v. Department of Energy
...the record to ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors." Public Citizen v. Department of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002,1020 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). The Court must be satisfied that the agency took a "hard look" at the potential......
-
Disparate Limbo: How Administrative Law Erased Antidiscrimination.
...inadequate given the complexities of the permafrost environment in Alaska."). (397.) See, e.g., Pub. Citizen v. Dep't of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that DOT's failure to prepare an EIS was arbitrary and capricious), rev'd, 541 U.S. 752 (398.) Other legal scholars ......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...2007). 373. For a case using both NEPA and conformity to challenge DOT regulations, see Public Citizen et al. v. Department of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003); see also City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. Federal Aviation Admin., 292 F.3d 261, 263, 32 ELR 20764 (D.C. Cir. 2002). he states......
-
Case summaries.
...976 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2589 (2003), infra Part III. Public Citizen v. United States Department of Transportation, 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003), infra Part Clean Water Act Tillamook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 288 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2002). Tillam......
-
Case summaries.
...32 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1994); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508 (9th Cir. 1992). (299) Pub. Citizen v. Dep't of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1019 (9th Cir. 2003), rev'd, 124 S. Ct. 2204 (300) 523 U.S. 726 (1998). (301) Id. at 732. (302) Id at 736. (303) Forest and Rangeland Renew......