Opinion ID: 196673
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Terms of the Statute. The CAA permits any person

Text: b. Terms of the Statute. to bring a civil action against any person . . . who is alleged to have violated or to be in violation of . . . an emission standard or limitation under this chapter . . . . 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1)(A). An emission standard or limitation is defined as a schedule or timetable of compliance, emission limitation, standard of performance or emission standard . . . which is in effect under this chapter . . . or under an applicable implementation plan. 42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(1) (Supp. III 1991). The additional definitions in subsections (2), (3), and (4) are not applicable here.1 Thus, citizen suit jurisdiction over a violation of the conformity provision is subject to a two-prong test: (1) the conformity provision must be a schedule or 1 Subsections (2) and (3) deal with controls, conditions, prohibitions and requirements related to specific situations and provisions not at issue here. Subsection (4) deals with conformity requirements under an SIP and does not apply because the requirements were not incorporated into New Hampshire's plan at the material times; the only relevant conformity requirements were those in effect under the Act itself. See 42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(2)-(4). -15- timetable of compliance, emission limitation, standard of performance, or emission standard, and (2) it must be in effect under this chapter or an applicable implementation plan. See Cate, 904 F. Supp. at 529. The conformity provision meets the second prong; as a provision of the Act, it is clearly in effect under the Act. See CLF, 24 F.3d at 1477. The sole question is whether the conformity provision qualifies as (1) a schedule or timetable of compliance, (2) an emission limitation, (3) a standard of performance, or (4) an emission standard, as these terms are defined by other provisions of the Act. If it does not fall within one of these four cat categories, there is no citizen suit jurisdiction over the conformity provision claims. (i) Emission Limitation/Emission Standard. Section
7602(k) defines the terms emission standard and emission limitation to mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis . . . . 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (Supp. III 1991); see also 40 C.F.R. 51.100(z) (1991) (EPA's regulations implementing the CAA). The conformity provision is not a requirement established by the State or the Administrator; it is a provision of the CAA enacted by Congress. And while the provision seeks to ensure conformity with existing emission standards or limitations, it does not itself limit emissions of air pollutants. Thus, it is not an emissions limitation or standard. -16-
(ii) Standard of Performance. defines standard of performance as a requirement of continuous emission reduction, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction. 42 U.S.C. 7602(l) (1988 & Supp. III 1991). CLF argues that the conformity provision constitutes a standard of performance within the meaning of section 7602(l) because it prohibits a federal agency from supporting an activity unless that activity is consistent with 'reducing' the severity and number of violations in a nonattainment area and will not delay timely attainment of any required emission reductions. In support of its argument, CLF relies upon this court's decision in CLF, 24 F.3d 1465, to which we now turn. In that case plaintiff challenged the Federal Highway Administration's approval of a highway project on the ground, among others, that it violated the conformity provisions of the CAA. Unlike the instant case, CLF involved conformity of a transportation plan subject to section 7506(c)(3). Under section 7506(c)(3)(A)(iii), a transportation plan or program is in conformity if it contributes to annual emission reductions in amounts specified elsewhere in the CAA. Referring to  7506(c)(1) & (c)(3), the court held that [t]hese conformity requirements plainly constitute an emissions 'standard of performance.' CLF, 24 F.3d at 1477 -17- (emphasis added).2 In so holding, the court observed that those provisions mandate that defendants demonstrate that their transportation projects 'would contribute to annual emissions reductions consistent with' the levels set out in 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7). Id. This language reveals that the court was relying on 7506(c)(3) for its finding that the conformity requirements constitute a standard of performance. See 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(3)(A)(iii) (to be in conformity, transportation plans or programs in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas must contribute to annual emissions reductions consistent with sections 7511a(b)(1) and 7512a(a)(7)). On further reflection, it appears to us that the route to section 7506(c)(3) lies through section 7506(c)(1). In CLF, as in the case before us, plaintiffs were challenging government action in approving an activity that did not conform to an approved implementation plan or other conformity criteria. See id. at 1478. While subsection (c)(3) spells out particular conformity criteria for transportation plans, the crux of the action remained the noncompliance by a government agency, not the violation of an emission standard by the activity itself. The 2 The court also held that prior case law limiting citizen suit jurisdiction to enforcement of specific measures, commitments, and strategies for ensuring compliance with air quality standards did not preclude citizen suit jurisdiction over conformity provision claims because the requirements of the conformity provision were sufficiently specific and objective. CLF, 24 F.3d at 1477-78. While we do not disagree with that part of the analysis, we do not reach the specificity issue unless we find that the conformity provision otherwise falls within the statutory definition of an emission standard or limitation. -18- foundation of the plaintiffs' claims, both there and here, is the subsection (c)(1) prohibition of the federal agency's approval or support of any activity not in conformity with an approved plan or other standards, requirements, or milestones. As noted above, a standard of performance is defined as a requirement of continuous emission reduction . . . . 42 U.S.C. 7602(l) (emphasis added). Nothing in section 7506(c)(1) imposes an emissions reduction requirement. That section prohibits a federal agency from approving, supporting, or funding any activities that do not conform to the provisions of an SIP or other standards, emissions reduction requirements, and milestones. The sources of those standards, requirements, and milestones may include the NAAQS or standards and requirements set out in an SIP or provisions of the CAA itself. Section 7605(c)(1)(A) and (B) define what standards must be met for a project to be in conformity. In the case of a transportation plan or program, such as the one at issue in CLF, section 7506(c)(3) imposes additional standards. Thus, the conformity provision refers to or involves standards, reduction requirements, and milestones, in the sense that a federal agency must determine that a project meets those standards in order to approve or support it. However, the conformity provision itself imposes no such standards or requirements. It simply imposes a duty on federal agencies not to approve or support any activity that does not meet standards, requirements, and milestones set out in an SIP or the CAA. -19- (iii) Schedule or Timetable of Compliance. Section
7602(p) defines a schedule and timetable of compliance to mean a schedule of required measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard. 42 U.S.C. 7602(p) (1988). CLF argues that the conformity provision is a schedule or timetable of compliance under section 7604(f) because the [c]onformity section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii) specifically prohibits federal agencies from supporting any activity if it will 'delay timely attainment' of the schedule of compliance set for nonattainment states like New Hampshire to reach 15% emission reduction milestones in 1996 and full ozone attainment in 1999. This argument is, however, inapposite. The issue is not whether the conformity provision requires the federal agency to determine that a project complies with a schedule or timetable of compliance found elsewhere; rather it is whether the conformity provision is itself a schedule or timetable of compliance. Plaintiffs here are not suing a polluter for violation of the schedule or timetable of compliance referenced in section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii); they are suing three federal agencies for approving and supporting a project that may violate that schedule or timetable of compliance. It might be argued that the conformity provision itself constitutes a schedule or timetable of compliance as defined by section 7602(p) in that it requires federal agencies to follow -20- an enforceable sequence of actions . . . leading to compliance with an emission limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard. See 42 U.S.C. 7602(p). The conformity provision requires federal agencies to follow a sequence of actions to ensure a project's conformity with limitations and standards in an existing SIP or with the NAAQS. Those actions, though not specified in the statute, necessarily include analyses comparing the most recent estimates of emissions in the proposed project area with the projected emissions in the area were the project to go forward, an assessment whether the project meets the specific statutory criteria for conformity based on those analyses, and a determination whether to support or approve the project. See 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1); see also Cate, 904 F. Supp. at 523 (finding that an agreement requiring gas pipe line company to conduct certain modeling and analyses for determining what measures would eliminate violations of the NAAQS and to develop and submit a plan specifying corrective measures and milestone dates for instituting corrective measures constituted a schedule of compliance within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(1), 7602(p)). We reject this argument, however, on the basis of the EPA's interpretation of compliance schedule in its regulations implementing the CAA. 40 C.F.R. 51.100 (1991). Section 51.100(p) defines compliance schedule to mean the date or dates by which a source or category of sources is required to comply with specific emission limitations contained in an -21- implementation plan and with any increments of progress toward such compliance. (Emphasis added.) 40 C.F.R. 51.100(q) defines increments of progress to mean steps toward compliance which will be taken by a specific source . . . . (Emphasis added.) These definitions make clear that a schedule of compliance is a sequence of actions that a polluter must undertake by certain specified dates in order to achieve compliance with relevant emissions limitations or standards. The conformity requirements themselves do not fall within that definition.