Opinion ID: 184033
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case law defining consultation

Text: In addition, our conclusion that the ordinary meaning of consult involves conferring with an entity before taking action is amply supported, if not compelled, by our relevant precedent. In Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.2003), we considered a provision that required the EPA to conduct certain studies in consultation with the States, and to issue regulations based on these studies in consultation with State and local officials. Id. at 863. EPA asserted that it had met its obligation by consulting extensively with States and localities before issuing its regulations. Id. at 864. We agreed, noting: [T]he overall record indicates EPA met its statutory duty of consultation. A draft of the first report was circulated to States, EPA regional offices, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and other stakeholders in November, 1993, and was revised based on comments received. EPA established the Urban Wet Weather Flows Federal Advisory Committee (FACA Committee), balancing membership between EPA's various outside stakeholder interests, including representatives from States, municipalities, Tribes, commercial and industrial sectors, agriculture, and environmental and public interest groups. 64 Fed.Reg. 68,724. The 32 members of the Phase II FACA Subcommittee, reflecting the same balance of interests, met fourteen times over three years and state and municipal representatives provided substantial input regarding the draft reports, the ultimate Phase II Rule, and the supporting data. Id. None of the efforts noted in Environmental Defense Center are present here. No draft was circulated to the States, no committee was created that included representatives from the States, and the affected States were not given access to the supporting data. Thus, DOE's efforts here fall far short of the efforts that were determined to meet the requirement for consultation in Environmental Defense Center. In Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466 (9th Cir.1984), we held that the FERC violated its duty of consultation. We noted that it was not enough to give notice to the agencies and Indian tribes, as the consultation obligation is an affirmative duty. Id. at 475. We noted that the respective fishery agencies believed the consultation process would take place in the preparation of [a fish and wildlife report], but that the agency issued the [report] before the exhibit was submitted. Id. Here too, the agency had an affirmative duty to consult and the affected States reasonably believed the consultation process would take place, but DOE issued the Congestion Study without engaging in any meaningful consultation with the States. Our perspective is also consistent with the opinion of the United States Court of International Trade in U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 33, 362 F.Supp.2d 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005). Addressing notice, comment, and consultation requirements, the court held that it is not enough to prove that the agency solicited and received comments from the Domestic Producers before executing the Suspension Agreement. ... The agency must also give those comments meaningful consideration and must engage the Domestic Producers in good faith consultations, in a timely fashion. Id. at 40. The court found that: Throughout this action, the Government has persisted in conflating Commerce's notice-and-comment obligations with its consultation obligations. And, to some extent, the Government has also conflated its consultation obligations under one part of the statute with its consultation obligations under another part. However, the statute is clear: Commerce's consultation obligations are separate and distinct from (albeit related to) its notice-and-comment obligations. Id. at 40 n. 14. We think that DOE pursued a similarly erroneous course here, attempting to conflate its obligation to consult with the affected States while preparing the Congestion Study with its obligation to provide the States an opportunity to comment on its NIETC report.