Opinion ID: 187314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extension of the Deadline

Text: The petitioners first contend the Extension Rule violates CAA § 213 because the EPA has acknowledged that more effective technologies are available now and the CAA obligates the EPA to set standards based upon available technologies. In promulgating the Rule, the EPA explained that, although it now has a better understanding of advanced technologies, it needs additional time to develop a Tier 2 emissions control program that exploits them effectively. 72 Fed.Reg. at 68,519/1. Specifically, the agency stated, it must still evaluate testing and compliance procedures, address the disposal of emissions removed from exhaust gases, and assess the costs and benefits of alternative emission control strategies using new methodologies that account for at-sea emissions transported to shore. Id. at 68,520/1-2. In evaluating the petitioners' statutory argument, we are not writing on a clean slate: In Bluewater Network, we held the EPA satisfied § 213 when it issued interim Tier 1 standards and committed to adopting by 2007 Tier 2 standards that would depend upon more advanced technologies. 372 F.3d at 412. The petitioners argue that, 2007 having come and gone, the EPA must adopt more stringent standards now to comply with the Act and that the EPA has abandoned its commitment to do so. The Extension Rule, however, expressly reaffirms the EPA's commitment to adopting more stringent standards; only the timing has changed. [] Our task today, therefore, is limited to determining whether the EPA's decision to promulgate Tier 2 standards in 2009 rather than in 2007 is unlawful. We hold that it is not. Just as the agency's original decision to regulate Category 3 engines in a two-tiered process did not violate § 213, neither does extending the deadline in order to complete the tasks necessary to devising an informed Tier 2 regulation. First, as we held in Bluewater Network, § 213 does not require the EPA to adopt the most stringent standards based on the most advanced control technologies; rather, it requires the EPA to consider a number of factors, including cost, noise, and safety. 372 F.3d at 411. The command of § 213(a) therefore does not preclude the EPA from taking the time it reasonably needs to weigh those factors and formulate a rule; on the contrary, it affords the EPA broad discretion in setting standards. Cf. Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C.Cir.2003) (holding CAA § 202( l ), a provision in pari materia with § 213(a), does not resolve how the [EPA] should weigh all these factors in the process of finding the `greatest emission reduction achievable'). In this case, the record demonstrates the EPA reasonably needs more time to develop a cost-effective implementation and compliance program for the advanced technologies. See 72 Fed. Reg. at 69,543-44. Furthermore, § 213(b) of the Act expressly contemplates that the EPA will consider lead time in setting standards. The EPA did so here and reasonably concluded that delaying Tier 2 standards will not delay the reduction of emissions because, although the feasibility of advanced control technologies has been demonstrated for some classes of vessels, if it set the standards sooner the EPA would have to allow manufacturers more lead time in order to ensure the advanced technologies could feasibly be incorporated into a wide range of engines. 72 Fed.Reg. at 68,520/3; see also id. at 69,537/2. Second, our reason for accepting as reasonable the EPA's initial decision to defer setting Tier 2 standards applies equally to the Extension Rule: Although advanced technologies are more widely available now than they were in 2003, the EPA could reasonably recognize[ ] the merits of the advanced technologies yet choose not to forestall their further development by . . . mandating their use without complete information and study. Bluewater Network, 372 F.3d at 412. As explained above, the record demonstrates the EPA reasonably needs additional time to formulate implementation and compliance measures. Meanwhile, as we observed in the prior case, the EPA has implemented Tier 1 standards to prevent backsliding while it formulates longer-term standards. Id. In these circumstances, we defer to the EPA's policy judgment that, whether that period is four years, as the agency originally contemplated, six years as have now elapsed, or almost seven years, as the Extension Rule will make it, is of little consequence given the complexity of this task and the EPA's explanation of the need for additional time. The petitioners next contend the Extension Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the record does not support the EPA's claim that it needs more time to set Tier 2 standards. This argument, not surprisingly, reprises the petitioners' statutory argument; when a statute affords an agency substantial discretion  as § 213 does  the Chevron inquiry overlaps analytically with the determination whether the agency acted arbitrarily. See Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. ICC, 41 F.3d 721, 726-27 (D.C.Cir.1994) (Whether an agency action is to be judged as reasonable, in accordance with the . . . arbitrary and capricious standard, or whether it is to be examined as a permissible interpretation of the statute vel non depends, at least theoretically, on the scope of the specific congressional delegation implicated). Accordingly, we recur to the issues identified in the Extension Rule and posed for comment in the ANPR, see supra at 5, in view of which it is not arbitrary for the EPA to extend its deadline to allow sufficient time to complete its rulemaking process. Finally, the petitioners claim the agency is arbitrarily delaying the rulemaking until it has negotiated international standards to control emissions from marine engines. In promulgating the Extension Rule, however, the EPA expressly represented that, although it does expect the international standard-setting process will generate relevant information that it should consider, it is not deferring to that process. 72 Fed.Reg. at 68,522/2. The petitioners give us no reason to doubt the EPA's good faith in making this representation; the petitioners' mere assertion to the contrary is not a basis upon which we can fault the agency. []