(CN) — A question of whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency erred in extending a deadline for meeting air quality goals will return to the agency after appearing before a Ninth Circuit panel.
Advocacy group Little Manila Rising had challenged an EPA rule that gave California a year’s extension to meet an air quality standard for the San Joaquin Valley, arguing the state swept past 2015 and 2020 deadlines. The EPA then approved a state plan and set a new deadline: Dec. 31, 2024.
A 2-to-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday determined that the Clean Air Act allowed the extension, though an EPA regulation prohibited it. The panel granted Little Manila Rising’s petition for review, opting to remand the issue to the EPA for further action.
Attorney Brent Newell, who represents Little Manila Rising, praised the ruling in an interview with Courthouse News.
“It sent it back to EPA to say, ‘Hey, you’ve got to comply with your own regulation,’” he said of the decision.
Newell argued in November before the panel that the EPA couldn’t set a new date to meet the plan because it had already missed a deadline.
The majority of the panel disagreed — consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, a Bill Clinton appointee, and Salvador Mendoza Jr., a Joe Biden appointee — saying two legal pathways exist to change deadlines.
However, while the Clean Air Act may permit a deadline extension, the EPA’s own regulation, in this case, prohibits it.
The panel pointed to the EPA regulation, which states that if an area labeled as “serious” fails to meet its air quality attainment date, a state is prohibited from seeking an extension.
Neither side disputes that the San Joaquin Valley missed its attainment date or that it’s under the purview of the Clean Air Act, the majority said.
“Moreover, we do not defer to the agency’s interpretation where, as is the case here, the regulation is unambiguous,” it added.
The panel granted the petition for review, though it pointed to the ongoing efforts about attaining air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley. It then remanded the extension issue to the EPA for further action.
U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented.
He agreed that the Clean Air Act allows for a year’s extension of the deadline. However, he disagreed with what he called a counterintuitive conclusion that an EPA regulation tied its hands and prohibited any extension.
Bress also referenced different legal pathways in his opinion. He noted that the EPA’s regulation could have been clearer. However, one section of the regulation disallowing an extension doesn’t mean other sections follow suit.
“Common sense and the [Clean Air Act’s] overall structure likewise support EPA’s interpretation,” Bress said, adding later: “If EPA had wanted to affirmatively prohibit extensions that the statute allows, something in the regulatory history would have made that intent apparent.”
Contacted Tuesday, the EPA said it would review the decision.
The panel heard arguments in the Little Manila Rising matter along with a similar case: Committee for A Better Arvin argued last year that the EPA wrongly approved pollution controls, called contingency measures, for the valley.
The panel hasn’t yet ruled on that case.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
