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

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JUL 25 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL No. 14-73362 RESPONSIBILITY-LOS ANGELES; et al.,

Petitioners, MEMORANDUM*

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; et al.,

Respondents,

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,

Respondent-Intervenor.

On Petition for Review of a Final Rule of the Environmental Protection Agency

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2016 San Francisco, California

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Petitioners challenge aspects of EPA’s approval of revisions to California’s

state implementation plan for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, including an

attainment demonstration for the revoked one-hour national ambient air quality

standard for ozone. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for

South Coast, 79 Fed. Reg. 52526 (Sept. 3, 2014). We deny the petition.

Under the Clean Air Act, challenges to…

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners challenge aspects of EPA’s approval of revisions to California’s state implementation plan for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, including an attainment demonstration for the revoked one-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for South Coast, 79 Fed. Reg. 52526 (Sept. 3, 2014). We deny the petition.

Under the Clean Air Act, challenges to certain EPA actions must be filed no later than sixty days from the date that notice •of the action appears in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b)(1). EPA required California to submit the instant state implementation plan revisions to correct inadequate compliance with California’s obligation to adopt and implement a plan providing for attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. See Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan and Call for California State Implementation Plan Revision for South Coast, 78 Fed. Reg. 889 (Jan. 7, 2013). That action, unchallenged by Petitioners, was expressly undertaken pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410 (k)(5), not 42 U.S.C. § 7509 (c). 78 Fed. Reg. 893 . Petitioners’ attempt to argue that the approved…

concurring:

I agree with the memorandum disposition, which I join in full. I write separately to emphasize the importance of contingency measures where, as here, EPA approves a state implementation plan (SIP) that includes section 182(e)(5) “new technology measures.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(e)(5)(B).

California’s 2013 SIP for the South Coast “relies on three types of strategies to reduce basin-wide emissions to the extent necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard”; (1) implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM); (2) “commitments made by [the local and state air quality control boards] to bring certain regulatory initiatives to their respective boards on a certain schedule and to meet certain aggregate emissions reductions in certain years”; and (3) new technology measures. See Approval & Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast 1-Hour & 8-Hour Ozone, Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 29,712 , 29, 718 (May 23, 2014). The South Coast 2013 SIP also includes, as required by the Clean Air Act, “enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures ... if the anticipated [new] technologies do not achieve planned…