Montana Environmental Information Center v. Thomas, No. 16-71933 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the EPA's approval of a 1994 revision to Montana's State Implementation Plan. The panel held that the EPA's interpretation of "a 2-year period which precedes the particular date" was a permissible one. Therefore, the EPA's approval of Montana's 2015 Implementation Plan was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and Information Center's comment regarding Montana's interpretation of the language in question raised a question of implementation, better addressed at a different time.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel denied a petition for review challenging an action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approving a 1994 revision to Montana’s State Implementation Plan. Petitioner alleged that the EPA’s approval was arbitrary and capricious because the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) interpreted “actual emissions” less stringently than the Clean Air Act would allow. The DEQ’s interpretation was advanced in unrelated litigation (the “Talen case”). Petitioner further alleged that Montana’s 1994 Revised State Implementation plan was deficient, and the EPA should not have approved the 2008- 2015 revisions until the state definition of “actual emissions” complied with federal standards. Petitioner submitted a comment during the EPA’s notice and comment period * The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. MONTANA ENVTL. INFO CTR. V. THOMAS 3 following Montana’s submission on December 17, 2015 of its final implementation plan. The panel held that the language of the Implementation Plan concerning the “two year period” in determining a source’s actual emissions was ambiguous where the DEQ and the EPA reasonably interpreted the phrase to mean two different things. The panel further held that it was appropriate to give deference to the EPA’s reasonable interpretation, consistent with the deference given under Chevron to the EPA’s rulemaking authority. The panel agreed with the EPA that petitioner’s comment raised a question of implementation of a program rather than approval of a plan, and as such, DEQ’s statements in the Talen case need not be resolved at the approval phase of the state plan. The panel held that because the EPA’s interpretation of ambiguous text in the 1994 Revised Implementation Plan was a permissible one, and because the EPA’s interpretation controlled, its approval of the succeeding 2015 Implementation Plan was not arbitrary or capricious. The 2015 Implementation Plan was otherwise in conformance with the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the Clean Air Act. 4 MONTANA ENVTL. INFO CTR. V. THOMAS
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.