Case 1:10-cv-00985-FJS Document 43 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________________________ 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CENTER 

FOR FOOD SAFETY, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY 

ASSESSMENT, and OCEANA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and 

LISA JACKSON, 

1:10-CV-985

 (FJS) 

Defendants. 

_______________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 

WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DANIEL GALPERN, ESQ. 

CENTER 

1216 Lincoln Street
 

Eugene, Oregon 97401
 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
 

EARTHJUSTICE J. MARTIN WAGNER, ESQ.
 

426 17th Street, 6th Floor SARAH HELEN BURT, ESQ.
 

Oakland, California 94612
 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANGELINE PURDY, ESQ. 

Environmental Defense Section 

601 D Street, NW 

Suite 8000 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Attorneys for Defendants 

SCULLIN, Senior Judge 

ORDER 

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, 
Case 1:10-cv-00985-FJS Document 43 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 4 

International Center for Technology Assessment, and Oceana (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek to 

compel Defendants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Lisa Jackson 

(together, "Defendant EPA"), to respond to three rulemaking petitions regarding the regulation of 

emissions from marine vessels, aircraft, and other non-road engines and vehicles under the Clean 

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. ("CAA"). See generally Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Between 

October 2007, and January 2008, Plaintiffs submitted three petitions to Defendant EPA, asking it 

to use its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels, aircraft, and other 

non-road vehicles. See id. at ¶¶ 48-50. 

Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth the following four claims against Defendant EPA: (1) for 

violations of the CAA for unreasonably delaying in responding to Plaintiffs' three rulemaking 

petitions under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a); (2) for violations of section 213(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7547(a)(4), for failure to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases and black carbon 

from marine vessels and engines cause or contribute to dangerous air pollution; (3) for violations 

of section 213(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7547(a)(4), for failure to determine whether emissions 

of greenhouse gases and black carbon from non-road vehicles and engines cause or contribute to 

dangerous air pollution; and (4) for violations of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7571(a)(2)(A), for failure to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases and black 

carbon from aircraft engines cause or contribute to dangerous air pollution. See generally 

Complaint. 

On August 20, 2010, Defendant EPA filed a motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four 

of Plaintiffs' complaint. See Dkt. No. 9. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 5, 

2011, the Court (Kennedy, J.) granted that motion as to claims two and three but denied it as to 

-2­
Case 1:10-cv-00985-FJS Document 43 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 4 

claim four. See Dkt. No. 25. Currently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for 

summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs' remaining claims. The Court heard oral argument 

regarding these motions on March 14, 2012. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and 

oral arguments, as well as the applicable law, and for the reasons stated at oral argument, the 

Court hereby 

ORDERS that the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED as moot 

with regard to Plaintiffs' first claim because Defendant EPA has agreed in both its motion papers 

and during oral argument that it will respond to Plaintiffs' three outstanding rulemaking petitions 

within ninety days of the date of this Order; and Defendant EPA is hereby ORDERED to do the 

same; and the Court further 

ORDERS that Defendant EPA's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and 

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED with regard to Plaintiffs' fourth claim 

because Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant EPA has unreasonably delayed in determining 

whether aircraft engine emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 

1 anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; and the Court further

1

 The Court reminds Defendant EPA that the degree to which it is entitled deference and 

discretion is neither unlimited nor unchecked; and, although the Court finds that Defendant EPA 

has not yet unreasonably delayed in making an endangerment determination under section 231 of 

the CAA regarding emissions from aircraft engines, such a finding does not entitle Defendant 

EPA to delay unduly in taking the appropriate agency action. 

-3­
Case 1:10-cv-00985-FJS Document 43 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 4 

ORDERS that Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate a telephone conference, using a 

professional telephone conferencing service, with the Court and opposing counsel on Tuesday, 

June 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2012 

Syracuse, New York 

-4­