Administrator, Arizona v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion by Judge GOODWIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERGUSON.

The Petitioners seek to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) approval of the request by the Yavapai-Apache Tribal Council (“the Tribe”) to redesignate its land as a non-Federal “Class I” area under the Clean Air Act’s (“CAA”) program for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”), The “Class I” redesignation allows the Tribe to lower the allowable increases in ambient concentrations of particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide on the Tribe’s land. EPA approved the redesig-nation after determining that the lands the Tribe sought to redesignate were Indian reservations within the meaning of the Act and that the Tribe fully met the procedural requirements detailed in 42 U.S.C. § 7474 (b).

The Petitioners contend that EPA abused its discretion in approving the redesignation because four of the five parcels redesignated are not actually Indian reservations as the term is used in 42 U.S.C. § 7474 (e). The Petitioners further assert that EPA abused its discretion in approving the redesignation because the Tribe failed to meet the procedural requirements outlined…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur generally with the panel’s decision. I write separately, however, because the EPA did not err in concluding that the four disputed parcels were reservation lands. In addition, the EPA properly promulgated the Tribe’s redesignation as part of a Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”). To hold otherwise due to administrative delay effectively wrests from the Tribe the power to control the deterioration of air quality on its lands and undermines Congress’ intent in enacting the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).

I. Designation of Lands Held in Trust as Reservation Lands.

The EPA’s determination that the Tribe’s lands were reservation lands was permissible and should be upheld. Pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), this Court applies a two-step procedure for reviewing an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers. First, we look.to see whether Congress has directly addressed the precise issue at hand. If so, the Courtfs task is finished since both the Court and administrative agencies must give effect to the unambiguously…