Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, No. 11-73924 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner challenged California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. At issue was whether the EPA erred in approving California's State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) enacted under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7409, concerning ozone and fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley. The court held that by approving California’s plans even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA; EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires; and, therefore, the court granted the petition in part and denied in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel granted in part, and denied in part, a petition for review brought by several environmental and community organizations challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of California’s State Implementation Plans to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards enacted under the federal Clean Air Act, concerning ozone and fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley. The panel held that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by approving California’s plans even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile emissions standards on which those plans relied to achieve their emission reduction goals. The panel further held that the EPA did not violate the Clean Air Act by not requiring inclusion of other state mechanisms in its plans. The panel also held that other control measures approved by the EPA were enforceable commitments as the Clean Air Act required. The panel remanded to the EPA for further proceedings. 4 COMM. FOR A BETTER ARVIN V. EPA
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.