The Clean Air Act (CAA): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of Michigan’s “exceptional-events request” was arbitrary & capricious; Issuance of a Redesignation Rule redesignating the Detroit area to “attainment” under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 42 USC §§ 7407(d)(3)(E)(i), (iii), & (v); Reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements

The court affirmed respondent-EPA’s approval of Michigan’s CAA “exceptional-events” request based on the 2022 Canadian wildfires, but vacated the redesignation of the Detroit area to “attainment” for the NAAQS. It held that the “decision to grant the exceptional-event approval was not arbitrary or capricious” but that § 7407(d)(3)(E)(v) “permits redesignation only when a state ‘has met all requirements applicable to the area’ at the time of redesignation, rather than at the time a state submits its application for redesignation.” The court first held that the EPA’s approval of the “exceptional-event” request was not arbitrary and capricious. It explained that the EPA sufficiently investigated and thoroughly provided reasons for its decision that “‘the exceedances at issue were due to wildfire smoke, rather than local pollution.’” However, as to the redesignation of the Detroit area to “attainment,” the court reviewed the requirements set forth in § 7407(d)(3)(E). It rejected petitioner’s arguments as to the requirements in subsections (i) and (iii). Its determination “that the decision to grant the exceptional-event approval was not arbitrary or capricious” meant that the argument as to (i) failed. As to (iii), it concluded the EPA’s “determination that the air-quality improvements in the Detroit area were permanent and enforceable emission reductions was not arbitrary or capricious.” As to (v), petitioner argued that “Michigan did not satisfy the RACT requirements imposed when the area was designated Moderate nonattainment, . . . and thus could not satisfy the prerequisites for redesignated to attainment.” The court reviewed the statutory text and, contrary to the EPA’s construction, held that since § “7407(d)(3)(E) commands the EPA not to promulgate a redesignation unless the state ‘has met’ (in the present-perfect tense) certain statutory requirements, it follows that the statutory requirements must be met at the time of redesignation.” The fact that “a redesignation request was pending at the time of the bump up” to Moderate nonattainment “did not preserve the area’s nonattainment classification at the Marginal level or suspend implementation of the RACT requirements.”