286 F. Supp. 3d 1082
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (coalition of environmental/health NGOs and 15 states) sued EPA Administrator Pruitt for failing to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) duty to promulgate initial area designations under the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the statutory deadline (Oct. 1, 2017).
- Parties agreed EPA triggered the 2-year statutory period on Oct. 1, 2015 and that EPA missed the Oct. 1, 2017 deadline; liability was undisputed.
- EPA previously promulgated designations for 2,646 counties (effective Jan. 16, 2018) but left the San Antonio area (8 counties) and other areas undesignated.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the sole remaining question was the equitable remedy and timetable for EPA to complete remaining designations and make them effective.
- EPA proposed completing most remaining designations by April 30, 2018 and the San Antonio area by Aug. 10, 2018, and asked 30–60 days after promulgation to make designations effective; Plaintiffs sought earlier dates (including immediate effectiveness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for missed CAA deadline | EPA violated nondiscretionary duty to promulgate designations by Oct. 1, 2017 | Admitted failure to meet deadline | Liability admitted; summary judgment for Plaintiffs |
| Deadline for remaining designations (non–San Antonio) | Require immediate promulgation or expedited schedule (by Apr. 30, 2018) | Apr. 30, 2018 is earliest practicable date to respond to comments and finalize | Court ordered promulgation by Apr. 30, 2018 |
| Deadline for San Antonio designations | Require EPA to issue 120‑day notice within 7 days and finalize within 127 days of order | Needs until Aug. 10, 2018 due to state submissions and internal analysis | Court rejected Aug. 10 date; ordered final San Antonio designations within 127 days of order |
| Immediate effectiveness of designations upon promulgation | Court should require immediate effectiveness to enforce statutory timeframe | Statute doesn't clearly command immediate effectiveness; EPA will make effective in 30–60 days | Court declined to require immediate effectiveness; accepted EPA's 30–60 day commitment but will enforce if EPA fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (inferences at summary judgment)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment burdens)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (limitations that can excuse agency delay)
- Am. Lung Ass'n v. Browner, 884 F. Supp. 345 (D. Ariz. 1994) (agency burden to show impossibility/infeasibility)
- Delaney v. E.P.A., 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990) (strict congressional deadlines for EPA)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (remedy tailoring where liability conceded)
- WildEarth Guardians v. McCarthy, 772 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2014) (clear‑statement rule for nondiscretionary duties)
- Catawba County v. E.P.A., 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (rejecting open‑ended designation processes)
- Our Children's Earth Found. v. U.S. E.P.A., 527 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.) (statutory clarity for nondiscretionary duties)
- Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 551 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1982) (deadline enforcement)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 658 F. Supp. 165 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (pragmatic remedy tailoring)