Court Opinion

ID: 2964256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:53.95198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.998264
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1780

                          PAN AMERICAN GRAIN MFG. CO., INC.,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

                                     Respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                      ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE

                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                         _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Romano A. Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt for petitioner.
             ________________________________
             Banumathi Rangarajan, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
             ____________________
        Environmental Defense Section, with whom Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant
                                                 ________________
        Attorney General, Joseph A. Siegel, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S.
                          ________________
        Environmental Protection Agency, and Michael Prosper, Office of
                                             _______________
        General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, were on brief
        for respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  September 6, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    CYR,  Circuit Judge.    Petitioner  Pan American  Grain
                    CYR,  Circuit Judge
                          _____________

          Manufacturing  Company,  Inc.  presents  two  claims  on  appeal.

          First, it challenges  the United States Environmental  Protection

          Agency's ("EPA") November 1991 designation of the Municipality of

          Guaynabo, Puerto Rico ("Guaynabo"), as a nonattainment area under

          the  National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") promulgated

          by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42  U.S.C.    7401-7671

          ("CAA").  Second, petitioner contests the EPA's May 1995 approval

          of  a revised  State Implementation  Plan ("SIP")  issued by  the

          Commonwealth of Puerto  Rico, which banned  further use of  clam-

          shell devices in grain removal operations to ensure attainment of

          the NAAQS  PM10 standard prescribed  for Guaynabo.   We  conclude

          that the first claim  is time-barred and reject the  second claim

          on the merits. 

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    The  CAA  was  enacted  "to  protect  and  enhance  the

          Nation's  air  quality, to  initiate  and  accelerate a  national

          program  of  research and  development  designed  to control  air

          pollution, to  provide technical and financial  assistance to the

          States in  the execution  of pollution  control programs,  and to

          encourage  the  development  of regional  pollution  control pro-

          grams." Conservation  Law Found.,  Inc. v.  Busey, 79 F.3d  1250,
                  _______________________________     _____

          1256  (1st Cir. 1996)  (citing 42 U.S.C.    7401(b) (1988)).   In

          furtherance of these objectives, the EPA promulgated NAAQS, which

          prescribe, inter alia, maximum allowable concentration  levels of
                     _____ ____

          fine particulate matter with  an aerodynamic diameter not greater

                                          2

          than  a  nominal  ten micrometers  ("PM10").    See  42 U.S.C.   
                                                          ___

          7409(a); see also id.    7407(d)(4)(B).  The CAA  requires States
                   ___ ____ ___

          to  develop  and  maintain  implementation  plans  for  achieving

          compliance with the NAAQS.  See id.   7410(a).  Accordingly, each
                                      ___ ___

          State, as  well  as the  Commonwealth  of Puerto  Rico  ("Common-

          wealth"),  is required  to submit  for EPA  approval a  SIP which

          specifies  the manner  in which  compliance with  NAAQS is  to be

          achieved.  See id.   7407;  American Auto. Mfr. Ass'n. v. Commis-
                     ___ ___          __________________________    _______

          sioner, Mass. Dept.  of Environmental Protection, 31  F.3d 18, 21
          ________________________________________________

          (1st Cir. 1994); Sierra Club v. Larson, 2 F.3d 462, 464 (1st Cir.
                           ___________    ______

          1993).  A region  that has not attained compliance with  NAAQS is

          designated a "nonattainment" area, see 42 U.S.C.   7407(d)(1)(A),
                                             ___

          which  imposes  upon the  State  the obligation  to  include more

          stringent provisions in its SIP.  See id.   7513.
                                            ___ ___

                    Under the 1990 amendments  to the CAA, by operation  of

          law, Guaynabo  became a  designated nonattainment area  for PM10,

          based upon NAAQS  violations which had occurred prior  to January

          1, 1989.  See id.    7407(d)(4)(B), 7513(a); 56 Fed. Reg. 11,105.
                    ___ ___

          Accordingly, on March 15,  1991, the EPA published notice  in the

          Federal Register announcing  its initial designation  of Guaynabo
          _______ ________

          as a  "moderate" nonattainment  area for PM10.   See 42  U.S.C.  
                                                           ___

          7502(a)(1)  (permitting EPA  to "classify"  nonattainment areas).

          On November 6, 1991,  the EPA issued  a final rule codifying  its

          PM10  nonattainment   designation  for  Guaynabo.     See  id.   
                                                                ___  __

          7407(d)(2); 56 Fed. Reg. 56,694.  

                    Thereafter, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board

                                          3

          ("EQB")  conducted a  public hearing and  received comments  on a

          proposed  SIP revision  which  would achieve  PM10 compliance  in

          Guaynabo.   On  November  14, 1993,  the  EQB submitted  its  SIP

          revision  to the  EPA;  in March  of  1994, it  supplemented  the

          revised SIP.   On August 11, 1994, the EPA  published for comment

          its proposed full approval of the SIP revision.  See 59 Fed. Reg.
                                                           ___

          41,265.   On May 31,  1995, after conducting  public meetings and

          evaluating the  comments received,  including those  submitted by

          petitioner, the EPA approved the revised SIP and published notice

          of its approval and promulgation.  See 60 Fed. Reg.  28,333.  The
                                             ___

          instant petition for review was filed on July 28, 1995.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                    A petition to review  a final EPA action must  be filed

          in the  appropriate  court of  appeals  within sixty  days  after

          notice of  the action appears  in the Federal  Register.  See  42
                                                _______  ________   ___

          U.S.C.   7607(b)(1); e.g., Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S.
                               ____  ________    ________________

          578, 588-92 (1980).  Appellate review is governed by the Adminis-

          trative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C.   706(2)(A), and substan-

          tial deference  is accorded final agency actions,  which will not

          be set aside unless "`arbitrary,  capricious, an abuse of discre-

          tion, or  otherwise not in  accordance with the  law.'" Citizen's
                                                                  _________

          Awareness Network, Inc.  v. United States Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 59
          _______________________     _________________________________

          F.3d  284, 290 (1st  Cir. 1995) (citations  omitted); Puerto Rico
                                                                ___________

          Sun Oil Co. v. EPA, 8 F.3d 73, 77 (1st Cir. 1993).  The deference
          ___________    ___

          due  "is  magnified when  the agency  interprets its  own regula-

          tions."   Puerto Rico Aqueduct  & Sewer Auth.,  EPA, 35 F.3d 600,
                    ___________________________________   ___

                                          4

          604  (1st Cir. 1994) (citing  Arkansas v. Oklahoma,  503 U.S. 91,
                                        ________    ________

          111-12 (1992)).  

                    We inquire whether the  challenged EPA action was based

          on  the wrong factors or whether there  has been a clear error in

          judgment.  Citizens to  Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe,  401 U.S.
                     __________________________________    _____

          402, 416  (1971).  Although  searching and careful,  review under

          the  `arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow in scope.  See
                                                                        ___

          Adams v. EPA, 38 F.3d 43,  49 (1st Cir. 1994).  Moreover,  we are
          _____    ___

          not  empowered to substitute our judgment for that of the agency.

          See id.; Caribbean  Petroleum Corp. v. EPA, 28 F.3d 232, 234 (1st
          ___ ___  __________________________    ___

          Cir. 1994) (citing Motor  Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State  Farm Mut.
                             __________________________    ________________

          Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).  
          _____________

                                          I
                                          I

                    Petitioner's challenge to the EPA's 1991 designation of

          Guaynabo as  a PM10  nonattainment area  is  time-barred, see  42
                                                                    ___

          U.S.C.     7607(b)(1)  (prescribing  60-day  period),  since  the

          petition  for review was filed  in July 1995,  three and one-half

          years  after the  designation.   Consequently, we  lack appellate

          jurisdiction.  Petitioner attempts  to circumvent the time-bar by

          claiming  that the  1991 PM10  nonattainment designation  did not

          constitute "final agency action"  for purposes of judicial review

          under 42 U.S.C.    7607(b)(1), but became final in May  1995 when

          the EPA  approved  the revised  SIP issued  by the  Commonwealth.

          Petitioner's  interpretation  lacks   supporting  authority   and

          conflicts with the plain language of the statute.

                    In its  1990 amendments  to the CAA,  Congress directed

                                          5

          the EPA to publish notice in the Federal Register announcing non-
                                           _______ ________

          attainment designations under 42 U.S.C.   7407(d)(4)(B).  See id.
                                                                    ___ __

            7407(d)(2)(A).  On November 6, 1991, the EPA published its PM10

          nonattainment  designation for Guaynabo, thereby constituting its

          designation a  final  EPA action  in accordance  with its  terms:
                                            __ __________  ____ ___  _____

          "today's codification  of the initial designations for PM10 in 40

          CFR part 81  represents final  agency action for  the purpose  of
                                  _____  ______ ______

          section 307(b)  of the CAA  [42 U.S.C.    7607(b)(1).]"   56 Fed.

          Reg. 56,706 (emphasis  added).  Cases in  other circuits likewise

          indicate  that such  nonattainment designations  constitute final

          agency action.   See Dressman v. Costle,  759 F.2d 548, 553  (6th
                           ___ ________    ______

          Cir.  1985); City of  Seabrook v. EPA,  659 F.2d 1349,  1370 (5th
                       _________________    ___

          Cir.  1981)   ("We  think   that  the  designations   [as  NAAQs'

          nonattainment areas] were `final  actions' subject to  immediate,

          direct  review under  [42  U.S.C.    7607(b)(1)]  when they  were

          promulgated."), cert. denied, 459  U.S. 822 (1982); United States
                          _____ ______                        _____________

          Steel Corp.  v. EPA, 595  F.2d 207, 211, clarified,  598 F.2d 915
          ___________     ___                      _________

          (5th Cir. 1979).  See also  United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605
                            ___ ____  _________________________    ___

          F.2d 283, 290 (7th Cir. 1979) (assuming, without discussion, that

          designations [of NAAQS nonattainment  areas] were open to immedi-

          ate  judicial review),  cert. denied,  445 U.S.  939 (1980).   We
                                  _____ ______

          believe this to be  both a permissible construction of  the stat-

          ute,  see  Chevron, U.S.A.,  Inc.  v.  Natural Resources  Defense
                ___  ______________________      __________________________

          Council,  Inc., 467 U.S. 837,  843 (1984), and,  from an adminis-
          ______________

          trative  efficiency  perspective,  entirely  rational.    As  the

          required SIP  revision process  itself is protracted,  it is  not

                                          6

          irrational  to conclude that Congress  did not intend  that it be

          further extended  indefinitely.  See,  e.g., FTC v.  Standard Oil
                                           ___   ____  ___     ____________

          Co.,  449 U.S.  232,  243 (1980)  ("final  agency action"  status
          ___

          designed to promote  "administrative efficiency").   Petitioner's

          counterargument that  Congress intended to  defer judicial review

          until the revised SIP has been promulgated is untenable, since it

          misconstrues the plain language  of the statute and misapprehends

          the equally clear intent of Congress.   Cf. Garcia v. Cecos Int'l
                                                  __  ______    ___________

          Inc., 761  F.2d 76,  79  (1st Cir.  1985) (plain  language of  42
          ____

          U.S.C.    6972(b), requiring sixty days'  notice before commence-

          ment of "private  citizen" suit  is "not a  technical wrinkle  or

          superfluous formality that federal courts may waive at will . . .

          [but]  part of  the jurisdictional  conferral from  Congress that

          cannot be altered by the courts.").

                    As the  EPA points out, Congress well understood how to

          defer review had that  been its intent.  Indeed,  it specifically

          provided for deferred judicial  review of classifications of PM10
                                                    _______________

          nonattainment areas until agency action has been taken on the SIP

          or any  SIP revision.  Compare  42 U.S.C.   7502(a)(1)(B)  with  
                                 _______                             ____

          7407(d)(2)(B);  see also  supra  p.3.   Thus,  the absence  of  a
                          ___ ____  _____

          similar deferment for  nonattainment designations affords confir-
                                               ____________

          mation that these EPA actions were meant to be subject to immedi-

          ate  review.  We  therefore conclude that  the PM10 nonattainment

          designation for Guaynabo became a final agency action for purpos-

          es of judicial review upon its publication by  EPA in the Federal
                                                                    _______

                                          7

          Register  as directed  in the  1990 CAA  amendments.1   Thus, the
          ________

          petition for review is time-barred. 

                                          II
                                          II

                    Petitioner  next  claims  that  it  was "arbitrary  and

          capricious" to approve the revised SIP  issued by the EQB.  Since

          the  revised  SIP comports  with  the  statutory requirement  for

          ensuring  attainment of  the NAAQS  for PM10  in a  moderate non-

          attainment area, this claim fails on the merits. 

                    Congress has mandated various SIP criteria as prerequi-

          sites  to EPA approval.  See 42  U.S.C.    7410, 7513(a) and (b).
                                   ___

          The CAA  generally allows States considerable  latitude in deter-

          mining how  to meet  these SIP criteria.   See  Train v.  Natural
                                                     ___  _____     _______

          Resources  Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 65, 79, 87 (1975).
          ________________________________

          In the instant  case, the  revised SIP submitted  by the  Common-

          wealth won  EPA approval following an agency review for complete-

          ness  and a finding that it reasonably ensured PM10 attainment in

          Guaynabo.  

                    Petitioner contends  that  the EPA  failed  to  provide

          adequate responses to its objections to EPA's assessment of  PM10

          violations,  its "modeling"  of grain processing  operations, and
                              
          ____________________

               1Petitioner's argument  that  the EPA  "reopened"  its  non-
          attainment designation during the SIP revision process is without
          merit.  Petitioner cannot revive  its time-barred claim by solic-
          iting  an EPA  response to  petitioner's comment  challenging the
          designation, especially since the EPA in this case simply reiter-
          ated its original position.   See, e.g., American Iron  and Steel
                                        ___  ____  ________________________
          Institute  v. EPA, 886 F.2d 390, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (permitting
          _________     ___
          such bootstrapping would be  contrary to congressional efforts to
          secure prompt  and final  review of agency  decisions; petitioner
          cannot goad  agency into  replying, then claim  agency "reopened"
          issue), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1003 (1990).
                  _____ ______

                                          8

          the  resulting RACT/RACM ("reasonably available control technolo-

          gy/reasonably available  control measures") requirements.   We do

          not agree.  

                                          9

                    In each  instance the  EPA presented  reasoned explana-

          tions for approving the  revised SIP notwithstanding petitioner's

          objections.  See 60 Fed. Reg. 28,335-37.   Moreover, petitioner's
                       ___

          criticisms, which go to the heart of the EPA's approval methodol-

          ogy, involve areas in which  "EPA's `expertise is heavily  impli-

          cated,' and  we may not  substitute our judgment for  that of the

          Administrator." Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129
                          _______________________    ___

          (1st Cir. 1976) (citations omitted).  Following a thorough review

          of the record, and  careful consideration of petitioner's claims,

          we are not persuaded  that petitioner has demonstrated "arbitrary

          and capricious"  agency  action which  would  warrant  disturbing

          EPA's approval and promulgation of the revised SIP.  See Citizens
                                                               ___ ________

          to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 415.
          ______________________________

                    The petition for review is denied.
                    The petition for review is denied.
                    _________________________________

                                          10