Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MEMORANDUM

1. EPA’s approval of the enforceable commitment wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. EPA reasonably applied its three-part test for evaluating such commitments in concluding that: (1) the commitment was sufficiently limited because it addressed reductions of about 10% for three pollutants, which is roughly within the range EPA has historically accepted; (2) the state was capable of fulfilling the commitment based on a number of ongoing and yet-to-be-quantified measures; and (3) the commitment’s two-and-a-half-year duration was reasonable, given that the state had already launched many emissions-reduction measures. See 76 Fed.Reg. 41,-562, 41,575-77 (July 14, 2011); 76 Fed. Reg. 69,928 , 69,944-45 (Nov. 9, 2011).

2. The commitment was sufficiently enforceable because it “require[s] California to meet specific reductions by specific deadlines,” rather than merely setting forth “aspirational, unenforceable goals.” See Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA Nos. 11-73924, 12-71332, 786 F.3d 1169, 1180 , 2015 WL 2384556 , at 8 (9th Cir. May 20, 2015).

3. The state implementation plan doesn’t impermissibly ignore pollution in near-highway areas because the monitoring guidelines…