Opinion ID: 672915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arizona v. Thomas

Text: 45 Tucson also argues that factual statements made by this court in Arizona v. Thomas, 829 F.2d at 834, preclude a finding that the Mass Transit Provisions are enforceable. The Arizona v. Thomas court noted in its 1987 opinion regarding the Pima and Maricopa County SIPs that no satisfactory plan had ever been submitted. 829 F.2d at 835. The court also stated that Arizona ... never had plans for Maricopa and Pima counties which appeared to meet all the requirements [of the CAA], much less plans which had been fully approved. 829 F.2d at 838. The court continued: 46 Having failed in its obligation to produce or make reasonable efforts to produce SIPs which would appear to meet the requirements of the Act, Arizona should not be given another opportunity to produce more plans. .... Arizona nonattainment areas never had ... a plan [in full compliance]. Congress intended EPA to disapprove SIPs with evident planning deficiencies, even if full approval had once been granted. 47 829 F.2d at 839. 48 Tucson reads Arizona v. Thomas too expansively. The Arizona v. Thomas court reviewed the EPA's September 23, 1986, action only to the extent that the EPA via the notice issued on that date disapproved the attainment demonstrations in the Arizona CO SIP for Pima and Maricopa counties and imposed a construction ban. The EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration because the SIP did not contain sufficient measures to assure timely attainment. 829 F.2d at 836-39. The court in Arizona v. Thomas did not disturb the EPA's judgment that Arizona's SIP would not timely attain the required standards. But the court also left intact other action taken by the EPA in the September 23, 1986, notice, which approved other measures related to mass transit. 51 Fed.Reg. at 33,746-49. The court did not disturb other, earlier EPA approvals, either, such as the 1982 Conditional Approvals. In fact, the time for challenging the 1982 Conditional Approvals in the Ninth Circuit had long since past by 1987, when Arizona v. Thomas was decided. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7607(b)(1) (allowing 60 days to obtain judicial review of EPA approval of a SIP). In 1987, nothing before the court or the EPA indicated that provisions of the Pima and Maricopa County SIPs (other than the CO attainment demonstrations) were no longer approved or that previous approvals were no longer valid.