Opinion ID: 786420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Redesignation of Cleveland

Text: 5 Cleveland was designated as a moderate nonattainment area in 1990. In 1991, Ohio submitted a SIP revision, which was supplemented twice. The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the plan. EPA approved the majority of the submission on May 27, 1994, but disapproved parts of it because of various deficiencies. The EPA stated in its May 27, 1994 notice that it would address in separate rulemakings the contingency measures required by § 172(c)(9) 1 of the Act and the Part D NSR requirement. Ohio submitted a SIP revision, approved by the EPA, that addressed the contingency measures. Ohio submitted another revision, correcting the deficiencies identified by the EPA in May 1994, which the EPA subsequently approved. Thus, the SIP was fully approved, except for the Part D NSR. 6 In the meantime, air quality monitoring in the Cleveland area showed that it had achieved attainment of the particulate matter NAAQS. On May 22, 2000, Ohio submitted a request to the EPA, asking it to redesignate Cleveland from nonattainment to attainment. The EPA proposed redesignating Cleveland on July 10, 2000. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio, 65 Fed.Reg. 42,312 (July 10, 2000). In response, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, representing the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club, submitted numerous comments, some of which addressed the lack of an NSR program in Ohio's SIP. The EPA issued a rulemaking, redesignating Cleveland and addressing the submitted comments, on December 11, 2000. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio, 65 Fed.Reg. 77,308 (Dec. 11, 2000). 7 In response to the comments with respect to the NSR program, the EPA stated that it continues to believe that it has fully approved the applicable SIP for Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties. Id. at 77,311. It stated that it believes that Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties may be redesignated to attainment notwithstanding the lack of a fully-approved NSR program meeting the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Id. at 77,312. The EPA continued, stating that it believes that its decision not to insist on a fully approved NSR program as a prerequisite to redesignation is justifiable as an exercise of the Agency's general authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements as application of the statutory requirements would be of trivial or no value environmentally. Ibid. (citing Ala. Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C.Cir.1979)). The EPA stated that once an area is redesignated to attainment, a new program called prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) replaces NSR and governs compliance. Ibid. Compare 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(5), 7503 (requiring NSR for SIPs governing nonattainment areas) with 42 U.S.C. § 7471 (requiring PSD in SIPs governing attainment areas). According to the EPA, PSD requires that new sources demonstrate that their construction will not increase ambient concentrations significantly and will not result in concentrations above the air quality standard. 65 Fed.Reg. at 77,312. It concluded that there would be trivial if any environmental value of applying nonattainment new source requirements in Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties rather than PSD requirements. Ibid. 8 The EPA noted that another purpose of requiring the approval of a Part D NSR program would be to ensure that NSR would become a contingency provision in the maintenance plan required for these areas by section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d). 2 It stated that whether an approved NSR program must be included as a contingency provision depends on whether it is a `measure' for the control of the pertinent air pollutants. Ibid. The EPA stated that the term measure is not defined in section 175A(d) and that Congress used the term differently in different provisions of the CAA. This indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one interpretation and that EPA has the discretion to interpret it in a reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. Ibid. Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret `measure,' as used in section 175A(d), not to include NSR. Ibid. 9 Finally, the EPA concluded that Ohio's maintenance plan required by § 175A(d) included sufficient contingency measures to correct any future violation of the NAAQS. 10 Petitioners argue that § 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA is explicit in stating the requirements that must be met before the EPA may redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment. One requirement is that the EPA fully approve the applicable implementation plan for the area under section [7410(k)].... 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(3)(E), 7505a. At the time of redesignation, Ohio's SIP did not contain a fully approved or approvable NSR program as required by § 7410(a)(2)(C) and Part D, and as required as part of Cleveland's maintenance plan by § 7505a. Petitioners argue that the EPA violated the express and unambiguous requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 7404(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), (v), and 7505a. They argue that the EPA has misstated the scope of its authority to carve out de minimis exceptions, and has failed to carry its burden of showing that such an exception applies in this case. Moreover, they argue, enforcing the CAA's NSR requirement will not lead to absurd results, noting that more stringent requirements are imposed on an area under an NSR program than are imposed by a PSD program. Petitioners also maintain that the EPA's position that the term measure does not include the NSR program is untenable and its explanation of its method in reaching this conclusion is contorted. Finally, petitioners argue that the EPA illegally approved a maintenance plan that lacks contingency measures adequate to correct promptly any NAAQS violation that might occur after redesignation.