Natural Res. Defense Counsel v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 13-70544 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 317 as a revision to California’s State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA approved the Rule pursuant to section 172(e) of the CAA - the so-called “anti-backsliding” provision - which allows for not less stringent alternative controls, finding that the pollution controls the Rule imposed were not less stringent than section 185 of the CAA. In its analysis, the EPA interpreted the statute to mean that the CAA’s anti-backsliding provisions apply when air quality standards have been strengthened as well as when they have been relaxed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the EPA reasonably found that section 172(e) contained an ambiguous gap; (2) the EPA’s interpretation of the ambiguity was reasonable; and (3) EPA’s approval of Rule 317 as an alternative program was proper.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel denied a petition for review of an order of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approving the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 317 as a revision to California’s State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act. The EPA approved the rule pursuant to § 172(e) of the Clean Air Act after finding that the pollution controls it imposed were “not less stringent than” § 185 of the Clean Air Act, which requires that major stationary sources of pollution in severely polluted areas pay fees for their emissions. NRDC V. EPA 3 Applying Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), deference, the panel held that the EPA reasonably found that § 172(e) contained an ambiguous gap. The panel also held that the EPA’s interpretation of that ambiguity was reasonable – i.e., that the Clean Air Act’s anti-backsliding provisions, allowing for not less stringent alternative controls, applied when air quality standards have been strengthened as well as when they have been relaxed.
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.