Opinion ID: 419819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Recommendation as a Prerequisite

Text: 20 Section 164(d) provides that the Federal Land Manager shall review all national monuments ... and shall recommend any appropriate areas for redesignation as class I where air quality related values are important attributes of the area. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7474(d). Although the section requires that the land manager consult with the appropriate states before making a recommendation, its language does not suggest that the recommendation acts as a prerequisite. 21 Despite the absence of language stating that a federal recommendation was required prior to redesignation, the court concluded that California could not act without a valid recommendation. The court noted that the entire focus of the statute was air quality. Yet the only section authorizing specifically the consideration of air quality related values was section 164(d). Because this section gave the power to assess air quality related values to the federal land manager, the court reasoned that this federal assessment must take place before California could redesignate. 22 The court rejected suggestions that the states could analyze air quality values as part of their environmental analysis under section 164(b)(1)(A). 5 It asserted that if the states could assess air quality, the requirement of a federal analysis would be meaningless and section 164(d) would be surplusage. 23 Examination of the statute and its background convinces us that the district court erred in deciding that federal recommendation was a prerequisite to redesignation by California. In enacting the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress stated specifically that it was removing the federal land manager's power to control classification of federal lands. H.R.Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 7-8, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1077, 1085. 24 The statutory language demonstrates that Congress achieved its goal of giving the states control over redesignation. Section 164(a) states simply that a State may redesignate such areas as it deems appropriate. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7474(a) (emphasis added). If Congress intended to establish prerequisites to redesignation, it would not have given the states this broad discretionary power. 25 The remainder of the statute demonstrates that Congress intended that federal land managers play only an advisory role in redesignation. Although section 164(b)(1)(B) requires states to consult with the land manager before initiating redesignation proceedings, the state need give the federal government only 60 days to respond. 26 The statute leaves the state free to act without a recommendation if the federal government does not respond within 60 days. Even if the land manager responds with a recommendation, the state may redesignate against the federal recommendation if it lists and explains the inconsistencies between the state and federal positions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7474(b)(1)(B). Because California can act independently of and inconsistently with the recommendation, we conclude that the court erred in holding that the recommendation was a prerequisite to redesignation. 27 We disagree also with the conclusion that the federal recommendation is surplusage merely because the state may reject it. The structure of the statute reveals that Congress intended redesignation to be a cooperative effort between the state and the federal government, with final authority in the state. 28 The mandatory review of federal lands required by section 164(d) places the federal government on record regarding redesignation. When and if the state decides to redesignate, the recorded federal recommendation allows the state to fulfill quickly its duty under section 164(b)(1)(B) to consult with the federal government. The recommendation does play a role in facilitating the redesignation process without restricting state action.