Opinion ID: 400897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Modifying the Time Limits

Text: 33 Petitioners also claim that conditional approval violates the strict time limitations built into the Act. With respect to this claim, however, we find that EPA's action, to the limited extent it is within our jurisdiction to review, is fully consistent with the Act. Mindful of the deference to be given an agency administering a statute, particularly when the administrative practice at stake 'involves a contemporaneous construction of a statute by (those) charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion, of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet untried and new,'  Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 408, 81 S.Ct. 1529, 1535, 6 L.Ed.2d 924 (1961) (quoting Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 350, 358, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1933)), we reject the claim concerning time limits. 34 In considering the claim that the conditional approval technique unlawfully modifies the time limits of the Act, we must distinguish between different types of time periods. The distinction affects not only the lawfulness of EPA's action but also determines which court has jurisdiction to remedy any unlawful action. On the one hand are time periods pertinent to a duty of EPA to promulgate its own SIP revisions or to act upon SIP revisions submitted by a state. A promulgation duty may arise after a state fails to meet the January 1, 1979 statutory deadline for submitting its Part D revisions, or fails to meet the deadline imposed by EPA for taking steps to satisfy the conditions of a conditionally approved revision. EPA's duty to act upon Part D revisions timely submitted to it is initially set by the Act as July 1, 1979, and may thereafter arise with respect to late Part D revisions by a state or state corrections submitted pursuant to the requirements of a conditional approval. Jurisdiction to enforce EPA's duty to promulgate its own SIP revisions or to act upon the revisions or corrections submitted to it rests with the district court. § 7604(a)(2); see Citizens for a Better Environment v. Costle, 515 F.Supp. 264 (N.D.Ill.1981); Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle, 14 Env't Rep. Cases 2121 (E.D.Cal.), aff'd, 627 F.2d 917 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 1354, 67 L.Ed.2d 338 (1981). 35 On the other hand are the time periods pertinent to an assessment of the lawfulness of EPA's action in approving or conditionally approving a Part D revision. That assessment requires some scrutiny of the time periods EPA has approved for taking whatever steps were promised in an approved Part D revision or were promised to satisfy EPA's conditions for securing Part D approval. Jurisdiction to determine whether EPA has tolerated time periods of unreasonable delay rests with the court of appeals in exercising its authority to review final agency action. § 7607(b). 36 We have outlined the various time periods pertinent to litigation of this sort to highlight the narrow issues presented to this Court by petitioners' claim that conditional approval unlawfully modifies the time limits of the Act. We are not determining whether EPA could have been compelled at an earlier date to promulgate a Part D revision for Connecticut, nor whether EPA could have been compelled at an earlier date to act upon Connecticut's tardy submission. Instead we face two other issues. The first is whether the technique of conditional approval is unlawful whenever both the State and EPA fail to act within statutory time limits for submitting and approving a Part D revision, or whether the lateness requires EPA to reject any deficient aspects of the submission and promulgate a federal plan to remedy the deficiencies. The second issue is whether the use of the technique is unlawful in this case because of the particular time periods specified for Connecticut to meet the conditions for unqualified Part D approval. We do not find EPA's action unlawful in either respect. 37 Once a state has gone so far as to be in substantial compliance with Part D and has given firm assurances of its intent to remedy any minor deficiencies that remain, we believe Congress did not intend to require EPA to reject the state's revision and resort to federal promulgation under § 7410(c). So long as the construction ban remains in effect in the interim, we think the Act permits EPA to afford states an opportunity to implement their own plans and to correct whatever minor deficiencies remain. § 7407(a) (states have primary responsibility for assuring air quality); Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., supra ; S.Rep.No.95-127, supra, at 10 (federal government does not have and will not have resources required to do an effective job of running pollution control programs for the states). EPA is entitled to interpret the Act to prefer a commitment by the state to make the needed (minor) modifications rather than imposition of a federal plan. City of Seabrook v. USEPA, 659 F.2d 1349, 1356-57 (5th Cir. 1981). Cf. § 7410(c)(1)(C); Utah International, Inc. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 126, 127 (10th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (EPA revision following disapproval after state fails to come up with revised plan of its own). In short, the statutory scheme gives a district court jurisdiction to determine whether to compel EPA to act if statutory deadlines are exceeded. But once the state has made its submission and EPA has assessed it as sufficient to meet its requirements for conditional approval, 26 the concern of a court of appeals is not how late EPA's action occurred, but whether the substance of the action satisfies the substantive requirements of the Act. 27 EPA's promulgation authority is not a punishment to be imposed for a late submission sufficiently complete to merit conditional approval. 38 The second issue is not a serious one on the facts of this case. Even if we assess the reasonableness of the period of delay tolerated in the conditional approval in light of the length of time that had already elapsed since the deadline for submission of Part D revisions, we cannot say that EPA has acted unlawfully in according Connecticut brief intervals to make relatively minor modifications. 28 39 We therefore reject petitioners' challenges to EPA's conditional approval, 29 except to the extent that EPA lifted the construction moratorium.IV. Indirect Source Review 40 Petitioners also contest EPA's approval of Connecticut's partial withdrawal of its indirect source review program (ISR) from its SIP. Indirect source review programs provide for preconstruction review of facilities that do not themselves pollute but that attract mobile sources of pollution. Shopping centers, sports complexes, highways, airports, and the like are reviewed for the increase in air pollution from motor vehicle traffic that they are likely to bring. In 1973, EPA required all states to revise their SIPs to include ISRs in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968 (D.C.Cir.1973). EPA promulgated regulations under § 7410(c), inserting ISRs into the SIPs of recalcitrant states. Congress reacted by adding riders to appropriations bills forbidding EPA to administer any ISR programs (except for airports and highways). E.g., Pub.L.No.93-245, 87 Stat. 1071 (1974). In the 1977 Amendments, Congress sought to give the same relief to states that had voluntarily adopted ISR programs as part of their SIPs. Section 7410(a)(5)(A) provides that 41 (i) Any State may include in a State implementation plan, but the Administrator may not require as a condition of approval of such plan under this section, any indirect source review program. The Administrator may approve and enforce, as part of an applicable implementation plan, an indirect source review program which the State chooses to adopt and submit as part of its plan. 42 (ii) Except (for major federally assisted or owned indirect sources), no plan promulgated by the Administrator shall include any indirect source review program for any air quality control region, or portion thereof. 43 (iii) Any State may revise an applicable implementation plan approved under this subsection to suspend or revoke any such program included in such plan, provided that such plan meets the requirements of this section. (emphasis added). 44 Connecticut was one of those states that had voluntarily adopted an ISR program as part of its SIP. In 1977, it amended its regulations to limit the scope of its ISR program to airports and major highway projects. EPA approved Connecticut's request for such partial withdrawal of the ISR program under § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii). It found that Connecticut had complied with all procedural requirements of § 7410, which it believed was all that was required by the final proviso of § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii). This court reversed, ruling that EPA could approve a withdrawal of an ISR program from a SIP under § 7410(a)(5)(A) (iii) only if the state's overall SIP complies with all of the requirements of § 7410-both procedural and substantive. Manchester Environmental Coalition v. EPA, 612 F.2d 56, 59 (2d Cir. 1979) (emphasis in original). Connecticut could not withdraw its ISR program from a SIP whose success may have depended on the ISR. Id. at 60. We suggested that if EPA approved Connecticut's soon-to-be-submitted Part D revisions as in compliance with the Act, it would kill (two) birds with a single administrative stone since the revised plan would presumably not include an ISR. Id. at 61. 45 Connecticut renewed its request to withdraw its original ISR program when it submitted its Part D revisions. It sought to revise the program further by limiting its scope to review of major highway projects. When EPA conditionally approved Connecticut's Part D submittal, it approved Connecticut's partial withdrawal of ISR; it found that Connecticut's SIP both as an integrated whole and project by project met the requirements of § 7410. 45 Fed.Reg. at 84785. 46 Petitioners first contend that the ISR program cannot be withdrawn because Connecticut is not yet in full compliance with Part D. They rely primarily on our suggestion in Manchester Environmental Coalition v. EPA, supra, that when EPA determined that Connecticut's Part D-revised SIP complied with the Act, EPA would simultaneously approve the withdrawal of ISR. Since EPA has not yet certified Connecticut's SIP as in full compliance with Part D, petitioners reason that the ISR withdrawal is premature. 47 The result in Manchester Environmental Coalition and the suggestion that we offered were intended only to ensure that the partial withdrawal of Connecticut's ISR program would not jeopardize the success of a SIP that depended in part on the ISR for attainment. 612 F.2d at 59-60. This time EPA has certified that Connecticut's SIP satisfies all the substantive requirements of § 7410 and Part D, except for the few minor deficiencies that occasioned conditional approval. None of the deficiencies relate to Connecticut's plan for carbon monoxide attainment, which has been given full approval. Because Connecticut's ISR program required review of indirect sources only for their contribution to carbon monoxide pollution, the success of Connecticut's SIP no longer depends on the ISR program. EPA has given full approval to Connecticut's plan to attain the carbon monoxide standard without a full ISR program. We therefore now see no reason why Connecticut cannot take advantage of the choice, which Congress evidently intended to give it, of withdrawing its ISR program. 30 48 Petitioners next contend that the statutory authority to withdraw from ISR, contained in § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii), does not apply to nonattainment states like Connecticut. They attempt to bolster this contention by a separate argument based upon § 7502(b)(2), which requires nonattainment states to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable in nonattainment areas. Petitioners contend that ISR is a reasonably available control measure within the meaning of § 7502(b)(2), especially for Connecticut, since ISR was a control measure already included in Connecticut's SIP. Combining the arguments, petitioners contend that since § 7502(b)(2) requires Connecticut to use ISR as one form of RACM, Connecticut cannot be permitted to withdraw from ISR, and § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii), which permits withdrawal, should therefore be construed to be inapplicable to Connecticut, if not to all nonattainment states. 49 We decline to adopt such a strained reading of § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii), which on its face does not mention any exceptions to its coverage. Section 7502(b)(2), like § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii), was enacted into law as part of the 1977 Amendments. We doubt that Congress intended implicitly to limit the scope of § 7410(a)(5)(A)(iii), which deals specifically with ISR withdrawal, by another provision of the same legislation that arguably includes ISR but makes no specific mention of it. If Congress intended to limit ISR withdrawal to attainment areas, it would have said so expressly. We do not believe that Congress silently and indirectly imposed a limiting scheme onto § 7410(a)(5)(A) (iii). 31 In fact the legislative history indicates that Congress rejected an interpretation of § 7410(a)(5)(A) similar to the one we are asked to adopt here. The House Bill would have allowed EPA to require some nonattainment states to adopt ISR programs. H.R.Rep.No.95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 221-24, reprinted in (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1077, 1300-03. The Conference Committee eliminated the exception and declared that EPA would be prohibited outright from requiring ISR programs. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 121, 126, reprinted in (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1502, 1506. 50 Petitioners point to language in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(iii) of § 7410(a) (5)(A) suggesting that the restrictions regarding ISR programs apply only to plan(s) under this section (7410) or this subsection (7410(a) ). They suggest the reference to § 7410 as opposed to the Act, which was the language in the House version of the legislation, demonstrates Congress' intent that § 7410(a)(5)(A) would not apply to nonattainment areas covered by Part D. We find two flaws in this argument. First, under the House Bill the restriction against EPA-required ISR did not apply to some nonattainment areas. H.R.Rep.No.95-294, supra, at 221-24. Therefore it cannot be argued that the final version of § 7410(a)(5)(A) was more limited and replaced a House version that would have applied across the board. The change was in precisely the opposite direction, broadening the restriction on requiring ISR. Second, Congress never intended to set up a separate process for EPA administration of states' Part D revisions. Section 7410(a)(2)(I) links Part D to the general SIP revision process. All SIPs are submitted under § 7410; if they are for nonattainment areas, the only difference is that Part D poses additional requirements. Therefore the references in § 7410(a)(5)(A) to plans submitted under § 7410 include submissions to meet the requirements of Part D. 32