ELR Citation: ELR 21358
No(s). CV-92-1494 (DRH) (E.D.N.Y. Jul 1, 1992)

The court orders the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs (I/Ms) required by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act and to publish the final rule in the Federal Register by November 6, 1992. Through the 1990 amendments, Congress sought to ensure that states would adopt effective programs to reduce motor vehicle air pollution in order to comply with ozone and carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standards in nonattainment areas by specified deadlines. The court first notes that because the Clean Air Act as amended imposes a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on EPA to issue the required motor vehicle I/M guidance by November 15, 1991, and EPA has failed to comply with that deadline, the court only needs to determine the remedy to impose. In adopting the four-month schedule proposed by environmental groups, New York City, and New York State, the court holds that EPA's claims that the I/M guidelines are complex, of enormous scope, and conflict with other regulations promulgation deadlines, are insufficient to justify departing from Congress' deadline mandated in the 1990 amendments. Although a court may extend the time an agency has for complying with a congressionally mandated deadline if the prescribed deadline would be infeasible due to budget or manpower constraints, or impossible because of the lack of information, for an agency, acting in good faith, to meet, EPA has failed to show any such infeasibility or impossibility. EPA commonly shifts resources in response to statutory requirements and an EPA assistant administrator indicated previously that sufficient EPA staff were available to meet regulatory deadlines. Moreover, EPA has not offered any evidence that the plaintiffs' proposed four-month time schedule for promulgating the final I/M guidelines would be impossible to implement. Moreover, any review by the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides no justification for EPA's delay, because OMB's review of regulations does not prevent EPA from promulgating final rules where the OMB review would conflict with statutory deadlines. EPA's proper recourse is to persuade Congress to amend the Clean Air Act, not to defy the Act and seek relief in the courts. Finally, the court notes that the four-month schedule will allow states to meet their November 15, 1992, deadline for submitting state implementation plans that comply with EPA's final I/M regulations.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
David Doniger
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1350 New York Ave. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 783-7800

Counsel for Defendants
Craig D. Galli
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Sara Schneeberg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. SW, Washington DC 20460
(202) 260-2090