Committee for a Better Arvin v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Background

The plaintiffs are Committee for a Better Arvin, Healthy Environment for All Lives, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Sierra Club. They sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA Administrator, and the EPA Regional Administrator under the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision. Their amended complaint alleged that EPA failed to perform two required duties.

First, the plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to determine by December 15, 2024, whether the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard by its June 15, 2024 attainment deadline. The Valley is classified as an extreme nonattainment area for that standard. Second, the plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to take final action by December 20, 2024, on California’s Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan revision as it applied to the Valley’s broader contingency-measure requirements.

Consent Decree Terms

The parties agreed that an appropriate EPA official would sign a final rule by September 15, 2025, determining whether the San Joaquin Valley attained, or failed to attain, the 1997 ozone standard by the applicable deadline.

The decree also requires an appropriate EPA official to sign one or more final rules by January 23, 2026, approving, disapproving, conditionally approving, or partly approving and partly disapproving the Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan as it relates to the Valley’s overarching contingency-measure requirements for the 1997 ozone standard.

EPA must send notice of those final actions to the Office of the Federal Register within 15 business days after signing them. The decree allows automatic extensions if EPA extends a public-interest notice-and-comment period or if a lapse in EPA appropriations occurs within 120 days before specified deadlines. The parties or the court may also seek other deadline extensions or modifications for good cause under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The decree preserves EPA’s discretion under the Clean Air Act and administrative-law principles. It does not give this court authority to review the final EPA actions or matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals. It also states that the parties do not admit facts or legal issues and do not waive claims, remedies, or defenses concerning EPA’s final actions.

Court’s Action and Effect

The decree states that the court has jurisdiction over the claims and that venue is proper. It resolves all claims in the case, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the decree and decide requests for litigation costs, including attorney fees. Plaintiffs must first provide written notice and attempt informal negotiations before seeking enforcement or contempt remedies.

The document is titled a proposed consent decree, but it also states, “IT IS SO ORDERED,” and is signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The decree further states that EPA must provide Federal Register notice and an opportunity for public comment before the decree is entered, after which EPA must request entry if the appropriate officials do not withdraw or withhold consent. The text does not describe a trial or decide whether the plaintiffs’ allegations were correct; instead, it resolves the dispute by agreement and sets deadlines for EPA action.