Natural Res. Def. Coun., Inc. v. Environmental Pro. Agcy., 72-1522

Citation475 F.2d 968
Decision Date31 January 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-1522,72-1598,72-1985,72-1810,72-1982,72-1941,72-2028 and 72-2159.,72-1522
PartiesNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent (two cases). FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Intervenor.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

David G. Hawkins, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Kent Frizzell and Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Dept. of Justice, for respondent.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

These causes came on for consideration of petitioners' motion for summary reversal, and the court heard argument of counsel. We must initially determine whether we have jurisdiction over all of these consolidated cases. Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-5(b)(1) (1970), provides that a petition for review of the Administrator's action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan "may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit." We agree with petitioners and with the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, see Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Cir., 465 F.2d 492 (1972), that by the phrase "the appropriate circuit" Congress did not intend that all suits involving approval of state implementation plans be brought in the judicial circuit where the state is located. Instead, Congress intended to adopt a flexible approach to determine which circuit is appropriate, and application of this approach to the facts of these cases and the legal issues we are presently called upon to decide permits us to hear all of these consolidated cases.

First, elsewhere in the Act, in a provision concerning judicial review of another kind of action by the Administrator, Congress expressly provided that judicial review shall be in the "court of appeals for the circuit which includes such State." See Section 110(f)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(f)(2)(B). That it did not use the same language in Section 307(b)(1) and instead used the vague phrase "the appropriate circuit" indicates that Congress intended the latter phrase to mean something other than the more specific review provision in Section 110(f)(2)(B). Secondly, we might note that failure to interpret Section 307(b)(1) in a flexible manner would produce some anomalous results. The Administrator has informed us that implementation plans in several metropolitan areas cover jurisdictions falling within several circuits. In our own metropolitan area of the District of Columbia and the surrounding Virginia and Maryland suburbs, for example, adoption of the Administrator's narrow interpretation of the statute would require review of the Administrator's approval of the D. C. metropolitan area implementation plans to take place in both our own court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We doubt that Congress intended such a result, especially in light of the indication elsewhere in the Act of a strong congressional concern for coordinated decision-making with respect to metropolitan areas crossing over several jurisdictions. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857c-1, 1857c-2.

Applying this flexible approach to the cases presently before us, it is clear from the record that all of these cases raise identical legal issues. None of these issues involve facts or laws peculiar to any one jurisdiction; rather, all concern uniform determinations of nationwide effect made by the Administrator. Requiring these cases to be prosecuted in the several circuits will only lead to delay on a question where time is literally of the essence, and will needlessly tax the agency's legal resources. We therefore hold that we have jurisdiction to hear these cases.

We also note, before considering the merits, that regardless of whether this court has jurisdiction to review the approval of implementation plans of jurisdictions other than the District of Columbia, all parties agree that we have jurisdiction to review the legality of the Administrator's approval of the implementation plan for the District of Columbia and surrounding Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and should our jurisdiction as to other areas successfully be challenged, our order is intended to remain in force limited to the local area.

Turning to the merits, we find that the Administrator acted in the best of faith in attempting to comply with the difficult responsibilities imposed on him by Congress. Nevertheless, he did not conform to the strict requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1970 in permitting several states to delay submission of transportation control portions of their implementation plans until February 15, 1973, and in granting extensions until mid-1977 for attainment of the national primary ambient air standard without following the procedures established in Section 110(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(e). The combined effect of these unlawful actions has been to interfere with the congressional purpose of attaining clean air by a date certain, May 31, 1975, subject only to certain limited and well defined statutory extensions. The Act plainly does not permit extensions of the statutory time for submission by each state of an implementation plan which will permit attainment of the standards by 1975. Whether or not the technology for implementation of or compliance with the plan is available is a matter for the grant of extensions under Sections 110(e) and (f) after the plan is filed.

In order to remedy these violations of the Act, the Administrator and the states must return to the procedures and the timetable established by the Congress.

Accordingly, it is ordered by this court that:

(1) The Administrator shall formally rescind, through notice to the states and through publication in the Federal Register, the February 15, 1973 extension granted to several states to submit the transportation control portions of their implementation plans.

(2) The Administrator shall formally rescind, through notice to the states and through publication in the Federal Register, the extension granted to several states to delay implementation of their plans or portions thereof until May 31, 1977.

(3) The Administrator shall inform all states concerned,* by direct notice and through publication in the Federal Register, that all states which have not yet submitted an implementation plan fully complying with the requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1970 must submit such a plan by April 15, 1973. That plan must satisfy each and every requirement of Sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H) if it is to be approved by the Administrator. In particular, it must provide for the attainment of the primary standard as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than May 31, 1975, and it must include "emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls."

(4) The Administrator shall, within two months after the date required for submission of a plan under paragraphs (3) or (9) of this order, approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof pursuant to the requirements of Section 110(a)(2).

(5) If any state fails to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (3) or (9) of this order, or if any state plan is determined by the Administrator not to be in accordance with the requirements of Sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H) and with the requirements of paragraphs (3) or (9) of this order, the Administrator shall prepare, publish...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • South Terminal Corp. v. E.P.A., FITZ-INN
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 27 Septiembre 1974
    ...dates from mid-1975 to 1977; however, it was held that he lacked authority to do so. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 154 U.S.C.App.D.C. 384, 475 F.2d 968 (1973). The Administrator finally ordered Massachusetts to submit its transportation control plan by April 15, 1973. ......
  • Cal. Tahoe Regional Planning v. Sahara Tahoe Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 20 Febrero 1981
    ...40 CFR § 52.1472. On February 25, 1974, the EPA promulgated a regulation pursuant to its interpretation of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968 (D.C.Cir. 1973)20 which in essence disapproved all state implementation plans (SIP) not containing indirect source review (......
  • City of Highland Park, Ill. v. Train
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 24 Julio 1975
    ...to provide for the maintenance of the primary and secondary standards beyond May 31, 1975. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 475 F.2d 968, 970, 971-972 (1973). The court established a new time schedule under which the Administrator was to review the main......
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 10 Marzo 1975
    ...Deputy General Counsel of EPA to J. G. Speth, counsel for NRDC, June 15, 1973, at 1--2; App. 62--63.65 See NRDC v. EPA, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 386--388, 475 F.2d 968, 970--972 (1973); cf. United States v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 395 U.S. 225, 232-- 235, 89 S.Ct. 1670, 23 L.Ed.2d 263 (1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The State Implementation Plan Process
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • 18 Agosto 2010
    ...of the goals 374. 22 U.S. 1 (1824). 375. 317 U.S. 111 (1942). 376. 402 U.S. 146 (1971). 377. 22 U.S. at 37. 378. 426 U.S. 833 (1976). 379. 475 F.2d 968, 3 ELR 20155 (D.C. Cir. 1973). 380. he regulation preamble at 38 Fed. Reg. 30626 (1973) contains a history of EPA’s promulgation of transpo......
  • Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies With Cleaner Alternatives
    • United States
    • Agenda for a sustainable America Conservation and Management of Natural Resources
    • 18 Enero 2009
    ...(D.C. Cir. 2005). 46. See e.g. , Natural Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Natural Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1983). ...
  • Land Use Legislation and the Real Estate Buyer
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 4-7, July 1975
    • Invalid date
    ...Footnotes: 1. C.R.S. 1973, § 24-65-101 et seq. 2. C.R.S. 1973, §§ 66-28-101 to 66-28-704. 3. Nat'l Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968. 4. 344 F. Supp. 253. 5. C.R.S. 1973, §§ 66-31-3(14), 66-31-27, 66-31-28, 13-5-113(2), 13-5-160 (4) and 40-13-110. 6. C.R.S. 1973, §§ 66-31-3(13)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT