Opinion ID: 773574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Projected Data versus Actual Data

Text: 23 Petitioners also argue that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving Missouri's ROPP plan because it relies on projected emissions for certain years to determine the required level of reductions, instead of relying on actual emissions data. The Court also rejects this argument. Because Congress has not directly spoken to this precise question, this Court analyzes EPA's determination pursuant to the second prong of the Chevron test here as well. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. 24 Petitioners contend that EPA's approval of the use of projected emissions data was arbitrary because [t]he 1996 'projected emissions' may bear no relationship to actual VOC emissions in 1996, further contributing to the uncertainty about whether the ROPP's controls will actually yield the required level of VOC emissions reductions. Pets.' Br. at 25. As respondents suggest, however, the CAA clearly provides for the use of projected data since the statute requires the state plan to be submitted in 1993, even though the calculations will include emissions levels through 1996. 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1)(A)(i); 65 Fed. Reg. at 31486 (arguing that [t]he 1993 due date leads to a reasonable conclusion that Congress intended for the states to determine the required level of emissions reductions based on projected as opposed to actual emissions) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court finds that it was reasonable for EPA to determine that, under the language of the statute, a late-filing state should use projected data as well. Id. 25 EPA contended in its final rule that pervasive use of projected data, rather than actual, ensures equitable treatment of all states. 65 Fed. Reg. at 31486. Specifically, EPA concluded that such an approach: 26 ensures there is no advantage gained from delayed implementation of emission control measures until after the compliance date has passed and actual emissions can be estimated, rather than risk implementing a control plan designed around emission projections that are too high. 27 65 Fed. Reg. at 31486-87. 28 The Court does not deem EPA's rationale to be arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, as respondents suggest, CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), does not indicate that a different rule should apply if the 15% ROPP is not submitted within the statutory time-frame. Thus, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that EPA's interpretation of the statute was unreasonable and impermissible under Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43.