Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. EPA, No. 13-70366 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioners seek review of the EPA's Final Rule partially disapproving Arizona's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission and promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in place of the disapproved SIP elements. The court concluded that EPA reasonably concluded that Arizona’s cost and visibility impact analyses for Coronado suffered from significant analytical defects and that the SIP did not provide a reasoned explanation of the bases for the ultimate best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Coronado; although Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), affords the states substantial authority to determine BART controls, the combination of these defects provided EPA reasonable grounds upon which to disapprove Arizona’s BART determinations as to nitrogen oxides emissions limits at Coronado; and its partial disapproval of the SIP in this respect was not arbitrary or capricious. The court further concluded that EPA’s visibility improvement assessment was consistent with the statute and regulatory requirements, and supported by the record. Finally, EPA properly promulgated its FIP in the same rule as its partial disapproval of the SIP. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel denied consolidated petitions for review of a Final Rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, that partially disapproved Arizona’s regional haze State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) – setting forth emission limits and other measures – and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) in place of the disapproved SIP elements. The panel held that the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it disapproved in part the SIP’s “best available retrofit technology” for the Coronado Generating Station, a coal-fueled power plant located in Eastern Arizona, and when it issued a replacement FIP as to the disapproved portions. The panel also held that the EPA did not err procedurally in promulgating the FIP in the same rule as its partial disapproval of the SIP. The panel held that its ultimate review of the EPA’s FIP must await the EPA’s final action on its proposal to revise the FIP in specific respects. Accordingly, the panel stayed the proceedings as to evaluation of the FIP’s technical feasibility until the administrative process was complete. 4 ARIZONA EX REL. DARWIN V. USEPA
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.