Bahr v. EPA, No. 14-72327 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioners seek review of the EPA's rule approving Arizona’s Five Percent Plan for airborne particulate matter around Maricopa County. The court upheld the EPA’s determination that the control measures in Arizona’s Five Percent Plan did not need to be updated, and that the 135 exceedances were exceptional events that are excluded from consideration under the EPA’s regulation and guidance documents. The court concluded, however, that it will not defer to the EPA’s interpretation of the contingency measures requirement because, under the plain language of 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9), contingency measures are measures that will be taken in the future, not measures that have already been implemented. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review of an order of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approving Arizona’s Five Percent Plan for airborne particulate matter around Maricopa County, promulgated under the Clean Air Act. Arizona submitted a new State Implementation Plan revision on May 25, 2012 – the Five Percent Plan – to achieve a five percent annual reduction in PM-10, a harmful air pollutant. Petitioners alleged that the EPA acted contrary to law by failing to require that Arizona include an updated analysis of best available control measures and most stringent measures in the Five Percent Plan, excluding 135 exceedances from the monitoring data as “exceptional events,” and allowing BAHR V. U.S. EPA 3 Arizona to satisfy the “contingency measures” requirement with previously implemented control measures. The panel held that it would apply Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), deference to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act issued in connection with a State Implementation Plan approval. The panel upheld the EPA’s determination that the control measures in Arizona’s Five Percent Plan did not need to be updated, and that the 135 exceedances were exceptional events that were excluded from consideration under the EPA’s regulation and guidance documents. The panel did not defer to the EPA’s interpretation of the contingency measures requirement, however, because under the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(9) contingency measures are measures that will be taken in the future, not measures that have already been implemented. The panel remanded to the EPA for further consideration of this portion of the State Implementation Plan, but otherwise denied the petition. Judge Clifton concurred in sections I-IV of the majority opinion, and dissented from the majority’s conclusion in section V that EPA’s approval of the contingency measures in Arizona’s State Implementation Plan was contrary to the clear language of the Clean Air Act. In his view, the scope of the Clean Air Act’s contingency measures requirement was ambiguous and EPA’s reasonable interpretation of that requirement was entitled to deference. 4 BAHR V. U.S. 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.