NRDC V. USDOT, No. 12-56467 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseNRDC appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, arguing that defendants violated the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., by failing to properly evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impact of a planned expressway connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The court concluded that the governing regulations do not decisively answer whether the CAA required qualitative hot-spot analysis within the immediate vicinity of the project area during the time period at issue; the EPA and DOT's Conformity Guidance implicitly, but authoritatively, fills the void by interpreting these ambiguous regulations to permit the type of analysis defendants performed here; and having concluded that the agencies' interpretation of the appropriate hot-spot analysis governs, it is clear that defendants' Conformity Determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Because the court was satisfied that defendants took a "hard look" at the Project's likely consequences and probable alternatives, the court agreed with the district court that the environmental impact statement comported with NEPA requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal and state defendants in an action brought by environmental groups alleging that the defendants violated the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to properly evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impact of a planned expressway connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the I-405 freeway. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the states must adopt a State Implementation Plan that provides for the implementation and maintenance of national air quality standards. The CAA contains a “conformity” provision that prohibits federal participation in any project that fails to conform to an approved State Implementation Plan. The CAA delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation the duty to establish procedures to assure conformity for transportation projects. Pursuant to that authority, the EPA promulgated regulations mandating a “hot-spot analysis” for certain pollutants, including PM - the pollutant at issue. In the course of the 2.5 expressway project’s approval process, the defendants conducted an air quality Conformity Determination, which involved a qualitative hot-spot analysis of existing concentration of PM , and an Environmental Impact 2.5 Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The panel held that the defendants were not required to estimate PM increases within the area immediately adjacent 2.5 to the proposed expressway, and concluded that the defendants’ Conformity Determination complied with the CAA. Specifically, the panel held that the CAA’s statutory phrase “any area” was ambiguous, and the governing regulations did not decisively answer whether the CAA required qualitative hot-spot analysis within the immediate vicinity of the project area during the time period at issue, but the EPA’s and Department of Transportation’s interpretation of the regulations¯permitting the type of analysis performed here by the defendants¯were entitled to considerable deference. The panel further held that the defendants’ Conformity Determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Finally, the panel held that the EIS prepared by the defendants took the requisite “hard look” at the freeway project’s likely consequences and probable alternatives, and therefore the EIS comported with the National Environmental Policy Act.
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.