Opinion ID: 185506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedure for Determining Indian country Status

Text: 34 In evaluating EPA's decision to use adjudication to resolve jurisdictional questions on a case by case basis, we are guided by SEC v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194 (1947). When Congress has not specified an approach for the agency to follow, the form of rulemaking or adjudicative procedure lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency. 332 U.S. at 203; see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978) (Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.) (quotations omitted). Thus, EPA's procedures for determining whether a particular emitting source (and thus a particular area) falls within Indian country (or is in question) would typically be entitled to deference, as the agency has broad discretion to choose between rulemaking and adjudication. See Chenery, 332 U.S. at 203; Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 543. However, when Congress has spoken, we are bound by that pronouncement. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43 (Chevron's step one). Further, regardless of the reasonableness of EPA's decision under Chenery or Chevron step two, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) this Court must determine whether the EPA's decisionmaking process was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). Here, Congress has clearly spoken, and under Chevron step one, the inquiry ends there. 35 Section 502(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d), requires each state to develop a state program to submit to the EPA. Each state must submit a legal opinion from the attorney general (or environmental agency's chief legal officer) that the laws of the State, locality, or the interstate compact provide adequate authority to carry out the program. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d)(1) (emphasis added). It is this provision which has been interpreted to require a showing of jurisdiction. Then, [n]ot later than 1 year after receiving a program, and after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such program, in whole or in part. Id. (emphasis added). The Act clearly requires notice and comment in approving or disapproving any part of a state program. That includes the showing of adequate authority and thus jurisdiction. EPA must determine, as part of that proceeding, which must include notice and comment, whether the state has jurisdiction. It follows that if the state has jurisdiction, then the tribe does not, and vice versa. Such proceedings are open to public comment, and judicial review, thus protecting the interests of the tribes as well as the states. Congress has explicitly required use of notice and comment in determining adequate authority (and jurisdiction) when the agency is evaluating the SOPs, and therefore EPA's decision to use separate adjudicatory proceedings that do not include notice and comment is contrary to law and does not survive either Chevron step one or APA review. 36 Section 502(i), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(i), further confirms Congress's clear pronouncement. Under that provision, [w]henever the Administrator makes a determination that a permitting authority is not adequately administering and enforcing a program, or portion thereof, in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter, the Administrator shall provide notice to the State.... 42 U.S.C. 7661a(i)(1). If the agency believes the state lacks jurisdiction, it must provide notice to the state and give the state 18 months to correct the deficiency. See id. at 7661a(i)(4). 37 Thus, it is clear under 42 U.S.C. 7661a that jurisdictional determinations are to be made as part of approving or disapproving a state's (or tribe's) operating permit program, and with procedures that include notice and opportunity for public comment. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d)(1). The statute here is neither silent nor ambiguous; it requires the use of notice and comment proceedings in the context where questions of jurisdiction are to be resolved. As petitioners concede, such proceedings will likely be complex and difficult. Nonetheless, they are mandated by Congress. That ends our inquiry.