C ase N os. 09- 7138 3 & 09- 7140 4 IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS

F ORTH E N IN TH C IR C U IT

______________________ ASSOCIATION OF IRR ITATED RESIDENTS, et al .,

Pe tit ion er s, v . UNITED STAT ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY, et al ., Re spon de nts . AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.,

Petitioner, v. UNITED STAT ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY, Re spon de nt.

_____________________ Petitions for Review of Final A ction of the United States E nvironm ental Protection Agency

____________________ BRIE F F OR RES PON DEN TS

____________________ O f Co unse l: JEFF ERSON L. WEHLING U. S. EP A, Region IX Of fice of Regional Couns el JAN M. TIERNEY U. S. EP A Of fice of Ge neral Counsel JOHN C. CR UDEN Ac ting AssistantAttorneyGe neral E nvi ro nmen t & N atur al Re sour ce s D iv. AUSTIN D. SAYLO R United States D epartment of Justice E nvi ro nmen ta l D ef

en se S ec tio n P. O . Bo x 23 986 W as hin gto n, D . C. 200 26- 3986 (2 02) 514 -1 880 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 1 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-i

TAB LE OF CO NTE NTS S T A T E M E N T O FJ U R I S D I C T I O N . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 1 I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D F O RR E V I E W . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 S T A T E M E N T O FT H EC A S E . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 3 S T A T E M E N T O FF A C T S . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 5 I. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A . T he Cl ea n A ir

A ct a nd N at ion al A m

bie nt A ir Q ua lity S ta ndard s. . . . 5 B . N o n a t t a i n m e n tA r e a s . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 6 C. E PARe vie w of

S ta te P la ns a nd R ev isi ons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D . S a n c t i o n s a n d F e d e r a l I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P l a n s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E . “ S I P C a l l s ” . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 9 F . T r a n s p o rt a t i o n C o n f o r mi t y . ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 9 II. HISTORY OF OZONE REGU LATION IN T HE SOUTH COAST. . . . . . 1 1 A . T h e 1 9 9 4 C a l i f

o r n i aO z o n e S I P . ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 B. The 1997/199 9 South Coast Ozone SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 C. T he 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y a nd the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MP .. . . . . . . 1 4 S T A N D A R D O FR E V I E W . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 8 S U M M A R Y O FA R G U M E N T . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 2 0 A R G U M E N T . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 2 2

Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 2 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-i iI. EPA HAS ALREADYAPPROVED CALIFORNIA’S PLAN FOR AT TA IN MEN T O F T HE1-HO UR OZ ON E S TA ND ARD , A ND HA S NO PRESENT DUTYTO REQUIRE A NEWATTAINMENT D E M O N S T R A T I O N . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 2 A . N oth ing in the CA A Re qui re d C al if or nia to Su bmit a N ew 1- H our O zo ne A tta inmen t D emonstratio n in 200 3, N or is E PAO bli ge d to R e q u i r e O n e N o w . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 2 5 1. A bse nt a

f ind ing byE PAthat C al if or nia ’ s S IPis “ subs ta nti al ly ina de quate ” to atta in the N A A Q S or oth er w ise c om

plyw ith the Act, EP A c annot require the State to submit a new a t t a i n m e n td e m o n s tr a t i o n . ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 6 2. The A ct’ s transportation conformity provisio ns do n ot com pel E PAto re qui re ane w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n. . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 B. E PA ’ s D isappr ova l of the 200 3 P la n’ s 1- H our

O zo ne A tta inmen t De m onstration Did N ot Trigger a Dutyfor E PAto Prom

ulgate a F I P o r t o I m p o s e S a n c t i o n s . ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 3 3 II. TH IS C OU RT LA CKS JURI SD ICT IO N T O H EA R PE TI TI ON ER S’ “ P E S T I C I D EE L E M E N T ” C L A I M S . ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 9 A . Pe tit ion er s L ac k S ta ndi ng t o C ha lle nge E PA ’ s 20 09 A ppr ova l of PE ST -1 , the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y ’ s C ommitmen t t o M ai nta in the St atus Q uo W ithRe spe ct to the E xis tin g P es tic ide E le m en t. . . . . . . 3 9 1. Pe tit ion er s’ a lle ge d in j ur ie s w er e not

c au se d byE PA ’ s 20 09 ap pr ova l of

P E ST -1 , the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y ’ s c ommitmen t t o m ai nta in the status quo w ithr es pe ct to the e xis tin g P es tic ide E l e m e n t . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4 0 2. V ac atur

a nd r em an d of

E PA ’ s appr ova l of

P E ST -1 w oul d no t re dr es s P et iti one rs ’ a lle ge d in j ur ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 3 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-i iiB. E PA ’ s A ppr ova l of the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y ’ s C ommitmen t t o Maintain the Status Quo W ith Respect to the Existing Approved “ Pesticide E lement” Did N ot Entail a Substantive Review of T hat E l e m e n t . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 4 5 II I. EP A R EAS ONA BL Y C ONC LUD ED T HAT SC AQM D’S SUPPLEMENTAL DEMONSTRATION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF CAA SECTION 18 2( d) (1 )(A) TO OFFSET ANY GROW TH IN EMISSIONS FR OM GROWT H IN VEHICLE MILES T R A V E L E D O RN U M B E R S O FV E H I C L ET R I P S .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 A . CA A S ec tio n 18 2( d) (1 )( A ) D ir ec ts S ta te s to S ubmit T CM s to O ff se t A ny“ G ro w th i n E miss ion s” F ro m G ro w th i n V MT , Bu t D oe s N ot R eq uir e St at es to O ff se t V MTG ro w th Whe re A ggr eg at e Ve hicle Em

issio ns Do Not I ncrease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 B. E PARe as onablyCo nc lud edthat S CA Q MD ’ s D emonstratio n Satis fi es the Re qui re m en t U nde r CA A S ec tio n 18 2( d) (1 )( A ) T o A dopt T CM s to O ff

se t A nyI nc re as e In E miss ion s Fro m G ro w th I n V M T ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 5 5 C O N C L U S I O N . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 6 1

Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 4 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-ivTAB LE OF AU THOR ITIES FE DERAL CA SES Ala ska Dep ar tmen t o

f En vi ro nme ntalCo ns erva ti on v. EPA , 5 4 0 U . S . 4 6 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 8 A lle n v . W

rig ht , 4 6 8 U . S . 7 3 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 9 B arnh art v . W alton , 5 3 5 U . S . 2 1 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 6 B ec hte l Const. , I

nc . v . U nited B hd. O f C arpe nte rs & J

oin er s of Am. , 8 1 2 F . 2 d1 2 2 0 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 3 5 Biodiversity Legal F

oundation v. Badgley , 3 0 9 F . 3 d1 1 6 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 4 3 Ca sey v. L ew is , 4 F . 3 d 1 5 1 6 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 9 Ch emic alMan uf

ac tu re rs Ass oc ia ti on v. NRDC , 4 7 0 U . S . 1 1 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 0 Ch evr on U.S.A., Inc . v. NRDC , 4 6 7 U . S . 8 3 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 19, 55 Ci ti ze ns Aga in st

Rui ni ng th e Env ir on men t v. EPA , 5 3 5 F . 3 d6 7 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 7 Ci tiz en s to P re se rv e O ve rto n P ark , I nc . v . V olp e , 4 0 1 U . S . 4 0 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 9 Cl ea n Ai r Imp le men ta ti on Pro je ct v. EPA , 1 5 0 F . 3 d1 2 0 0 ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 2 6 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 5 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-vCorley v. United States , 1 2 9 S . C t . 1 5 5 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 5 3 Cuevas-G aspa r v. Gonzales , 4 3 0 F . 3 d1 0 1 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 3 6 D aim le rC

hry sle r Corp. v . Cu no , 5 4 7 U . S . 3 3 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4 0 E l Com ité

par a e l B ie ne sta r de E

arl im art v . W arm er dam , 5 3 9 F . 3 d1 0 6 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 4 2 Ge neral Motors Corp. v. United States , 4 9 6 U . S . 5 3 0 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 5 Gonzales v. G orsu ch , 6 8 8 F . 2 d1 2 6 3 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 4 4 G ood Sam ari tan H

ospi tal v . Sha lal a , 5 0 8 U . S . 4 0 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 8 Hal l v. EPA , 2 7 3 F . 3 d1 1 4 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 7, 24 H av asup ai T

rib e v. R obe rts on , 9 4 3 F . 2 d3 2 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 0 Leslie Salt Co. v. United States , 5 5 F . 3 d 1 3 8 8 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 0 Lu jan v . D ef

en de rs o f W ild lif e , 5 0 4 U . S . 5 5 5 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 40, 43 M cC arthy v . T

hom as , 2 7 F . 3 d 1 3 6 3 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 8 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 6 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-v iM oto r V eh ic le M frs . A ss’ n, I

nc . v . Sta te F

armMut. A uto . I

ns. Co . , 4 6 3 U . S . 2 9 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 1 9 Na tio nal A sso ci ati on o

f H om eb uil de rs v . D ef

en de rs o f W ild lif e , 5 5 1 U . S . 6 4 4 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 5 Natura l Re sour ces D efense Council, Inc. v. Browner , 5 7 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 3 6 Na tu ra l Res ou rc es Defe ns e Co un ci l v. EPA , 5 2 6 F . 3 d5 9 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 8 No rthw es t En vi ro nme ntalDefe ns e Ct r. v. BPA , 1 1 7 F . 3 d1 5 2 0 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 4 0 R ail way La bor E

xe cu tiv es A sso ci ati on v . D ole , 7 6 0 F . 2 d1 0 2 1 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 4 4 Sa fe Air fo r Eve ry on e v. EPA , 4 8 8 F . 3 d1 0 8 8 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 5 Sie rra Cl ub v . J

ohns on , 5 4 1 F . 3 d1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 2 7 Sim on v . E

aster n K y. W el fare R igh ts O rgan iza tio n , 4 2 6 U . S . 2 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 4 1 Sma llRefi ne r Le ad

Pha se -Do wn Ta sk

For ce v. EPA , 7 0 5 F . 2 d5 0 6 ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 9 Sta te of A riz ona v. T

hom as , 8 2 9 F . 2 d8 3 4 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 6 Sum m er s v . E art h I sla nd I nst itu te , 1 2 9 S . C t . 1 1 4 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 4 0 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 7 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-v iiUni on Elec tr ic Co . v. EPA , 4 2 7 U . S . 2 4 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 7 V igi l v . L ea vi tt , 3 8 1 F . 3 d8 2 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 8 W arth v . Se ldi n , 4 2 2 U . S . 4 9 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3 9 FE DERAL STA TUT ES 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 1 8 4 2 U . S . C . § § 7 4 0 1

- 7 6 7 1 q . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 5 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 0 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 35, 36 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 0 7 ( a ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 6, 7, 37 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 0 7 ( d ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 4 2 U . S . C . § § 7 4 0 8

- 0 9 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 5 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 0 8 ( f

) ( 1 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 4 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( a ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 6 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 6, 28 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 2 2 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 9 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 4

Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 8 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-v iii

4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

- ( B ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 3 4 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 34, 35 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( k ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( k ) ( 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 7 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( k ) ( 3 )

- ( 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 0 ( k ) ( 5 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 9, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( l ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 4 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 4 1 3 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 2 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 6, 28 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 2 ( d ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 7 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 6 ( c ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 0 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 3 2 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 10, 32 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 9 ( a ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 8, 33, 34 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 0 9 ( b ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 8 4 2 U . S . C . § § 7 5 1 1

- 1 1 f . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 7 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 1 2 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 a . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 8

Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 9 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378- ix4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 a ( b ) ( 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 3 7 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 a ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 11, 21, 22, 23, 32 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 a ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 17, 22, 48, 61 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 5 1 1 a ( e ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 1 1 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 6 0 7 ( b ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 6 0 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 1 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 6 0 7 ( d ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 6 0 7 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A )

- ( V ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 1 8 4 2 U . S . C . § 7 6 6 1 d ( b ) ( 2 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 2 7 CODE OF FEDERAL REG ULATI ONS 4 0 C . F . R . § 5 2 . 3 1 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 8 4 0 C . F . R . § 8 1 . 3 0 5 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 4 0 C . F . R . § 9 3 . 1 0 1 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 0 4 0 C . F . R . § § 9 3 . 1 0 8

- 9 3 . 1 1 5 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 0 4 0 C . F . R . § 9 3 . 1 1 8 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 0 4 0 C . F . R . § 9 3 . 1 1 8 ( e ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 1 6 4 0 C . F . R . § 9 3 . 1 1 8 ( e ) ( 3 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 1 1 4 0 C . F . R . § 9 3 . 1 1 8 ( e ) ( 4 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 1 1 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 10 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378- xFE DERAL REG ISTER 5 6 F e d . R e g . 5 6 , 6 9 4 , 5 6 , 7 2 6 ( N o v . 6 , 1 9 9 1 ) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 58 Fed. Re g. 50,262, 50,265 (Se pt. 27, 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 60 Fed. Re g. 48,896, 48,898 (Se pt. 21, 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 62 Fed. Re g. 23,410, 23, 417 (Apr. 30, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 6 2 F e d . R e g . 3 5 , 1 0 0 ( J u n . 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 ) . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 6 65 Fed. Re g. 10,713, 10,716 (Fe b. 29, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 66 Fed. Re g. 57,247, 57,248-49 (Nov. 14, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 73 Fed. Re g. 20,536, 20,547 (A pr. 16, 2008 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 LEG IS LATI VE HI STO RY H. R. Rep. No. 101-490 at 242, re printed in 2 A Le gislativ e H istory of the Clean A ir A ct A m en dmen ts o f 1990 ( Co mm . P ri nt 1 993) a t 32 66. . . . . . . . . 50, 58 1 L e g i s . H i s t . a t8 3 3 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 5 8 1 L e g i s . H i s t . a t1 0 0 6 - 0 7 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 6 0 1 L e g i s . H i s t . a t1 3 0 4 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 59, 60 2 L e g i s . H i s t . a t3 2 6 6 - 6 7 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 5 8 4 L e g i s . H i s t . a t4 8 7 8 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 60, 61 4 L e g i s . H i s t . a t4 8 7 9 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 6 1 5 L e g i s . H i s t . a t8 3 8 4 . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 5 9 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 11 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378-xiGLOSS AR Y O F A CR ONY MS AQ MP Air QualityManagement Plan CAA Clean A ir A ct CAR B California A ir Resources B oard EP A United States E nvironm ental Protection Agency FIP Federa l Im plem entation Plan MV E Bs Mot or V eh ic le E miss ion s B udge ts N A A Q S N at ion al A m bie nt A ir Q ua lity S ta ndard s PE R Petitioners’ Exce rpts of Record RE R Respondent s’ Exce rpts of Record SCA QMD South Coast Air Q uality Management District SIP State I m plem entation Plan TC M Tr ansportation Control Measure V O C V olatil e O rg an ic Co m poun ds V MT V eh ic le Mi le s T ra ve le d Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 12 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378As discussed infra at 12, the “ Pesticide E lement” wa s a plan designed to reduce

/ 1 volatile organic com

poun d (“ VO C”) emissio ns from agricultural and comm ercia l struc tur al pe sti ci de appl ic at ion s, P et iti one rs ’ E xc er pts of Re co rd( “ PE R” ) 256, a nd wa s am ong several m easures in the 1994 California Ozone P lan that EPA ap pr ov ed in 19 97 . RER 13 3. 1

STA TEM ENT OF JUR ISDIC TION Petitioners challenge a Mar ch 10, 2009, action by the United State s E nvi ro nmen ta l P ro te ct ion A ge nc y ( “ E PA ” or “ A ge nc y ”) appr ovi ng i n part a nd disapprov ing in part severa l revisions to the Los A ngeles m etropolitan area portio n of

Ca lif or nia ’ s st at e im

ple m en ta tio n pl an f

or mee tin g a ir

qua lity standard s fo r oz on e u nd er t he Cle an Air Act(“ CAA” o r “ Act” ). T his Co urt ha s j ur isd ic tio n ov er the se c onso lid at edpe tit ion s ( w ithone exception no ted below) pursuant to CAAsection 307 , 42 U .S .C. § 7607 (b)(1), w hic h pr ovi de s f

or r ev ie w , “ in the U nit edS ta te s C ourt of A ppe al s f

or the ap pr opria te c ir cu it, ” of

E PAa ct ion und er

the CA A “ w hic h is loc al lyor r eg ion al ly ap pli cable . ” P et iti one rs ti m el y f ile d th ei r pe tit ion s in the appr opria te c ir cu it. W ith the e xc ep tio n no te d be low , E PAdoe s no t c ont es t P et iti one rs ’ standi ng t o ch al le nge E PA ’ s rule m aking . Pe tit ion er s la ck

standi ng t o c ha lle nge E PA ’ s M ar ch10, 200 9, a ct ion on the be cause the a ge nc y ’ s a ct ion didnot c au se the ir so- ca lle d “ Pe sti ci de E le m en t” / 1 al le ge d i nju rie s, n orcan th ei r al le ge d i nju rie s b e red res se d b y a fav or ab le rul in g. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 13 of 76 DktEntry: 71193782

T he sub mitt edP es tic ide E le m en t di d no t di ff er f ro m that w hic h w as a lr ea dy included in the approved plan, and which w ould have continued in eff ect reg ard le ss of wh et he r EPA ch os e to ap pr ov e o r di sa pp ro ve th e n ew su bmis si on . T hus, E PA ’ s a ct ion c oul d no t ha ve c au se d P et iti one rs ’ a lle ge d in j ur ie s, nor

c oul d va catur of E PA ’ s appr ova l r emed y tho se a lle ge d in j ur ie s. T he Co urt l ac ks j ur isd ic tio n to he ar

the se c la im s. ISSU ES P RES ENT ED FOR RE VIEW 1. Whether E PArea sonably found that, because Calif ornia alrea dy had an ap p ro v ed at t ai n m en td emo n s tra t i o n fo r t h e 1 -h o u r o zo n e s t an d ar d , EP A’s dis ap pr ova l of

the S ta te ’ s vo lun tari ly -r ev ise d a tta inmen t de m onstratio n di d no t trigg er aduty to pr om

ulg at e a Fe de ra l I m

ple m en ta tio n P la n or

im pose sa nc tio ns. 2. Whe the r Pe tit ion er s ha ve standi ng t o c ha lle nge E PA ’ s appr ova l of Ca lif or nia ’ s c ommitmen t t o m ai nta in the status quo w ithr es pe ct to the e xis tin g Pesticide E lement, a s approved by EP A in 1997, and if so, w hether E PAwa s re qui re d to und ertake asub sta nti ve r ev ie w of the e xis tin g P es tic ide E le m en t. 3. Whe the r E PAr ea sonablyint er pr et s th e A ct

to al low Ca lif

or nia to co m plyw iththe of

fs et r eq uir emen t of

CA A se ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) bysho w ing an nua l de cr ea se s in a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s th ro ugh the a tta inmen t y ear. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 14 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378T he “ So uth Co as t” are a is c om pr ise d of O ra nge Co unt y , the sou thw es te rn tw o/ 2 thirds of Los Angeles County , southwestern S an Bernar dino County , a nd western Ri ve rs id e Co un ty. See 4 0 C .F.R. § 8 1.3 05 . 3 STA TEM ENT OF THE C AS E A state im

ple m en ta tio n pl an , or

“ SI P, ” doc umen ts a

state ’ s pl an f

or im ple m en tin g, m ai nta ini ng, a nd e nf or ci ng f ed er al a ir qua lity standard s in e ac h a ir qua lity c ontro l r eg ion w ith in tha t st at e. S IP s, a nd r ev isi ons to the m , m ust be re vie w eda nd appr ove d byE PAbe fo re the y be co m e ef fe ct ive . O n M ar ch10, 2009 , E PAissued a final rule approving in part and disapprovi ng in p art proposed revisions to California’ s SIP. T hese revisions in cluded a revised slate of measures to reduce em

issio ns (“ 2003 State S trategy ”), and a re vised local ozon e plan updatin g vari ous el emen ts o f an e arlie r- ap pr ove d pl an ( “ 2003 S outh C oa st A ir Q ua lity Ma na ge m en t P la n” ). B oth sub miss ion s in cl ude d pr ovi sio ns s pe ci fi ca lly an targeting the Los Angeles-S outh Coast Air Basin Ar ea ( “ South Coast”), / 2

“ ex tre m e n on at ta in m en t ar ea” f orth e 1 -h ou r oz on e st an da rd un de r th e Act . A S IPf or a n e xtr eme 1- hour

oz one non atta inmen t are a m ust mee t vari ous re qui re m en ts u nde r the A ct , inc lud ing the r eq uir emen t t o de m onstrate a tta inmen t by the applicable attainm ent date (i. e. , 2010). More than eleven y ears a go, E PA de te rm ine d th at the 199 4 C al if

or nia O zo ne S IPmet

thi s a tta inmen t de m onstratio n re qui re m en t f

or the 1- hour

oz one standardf

or the S outh C oa st. R es pond en ts’ Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 15 of 76 DktEntry: 71193784

E xc er pts of Re co rd( “ RE R” ) 097. I n 20 00, E PAappr ove d r ev isi ons to tha t oz one atta inmen t de m onstratio n pl an that the S ta te c hose , but w as not r eq uir ed , to subm it. R E R 1 46–4 7. T his f

ull y -appr ove d a tta inmen t de m onstratio n r em ai ns i n effe ct until EPAapproves a SIPrevision that m odifies, re places, or rescinds it. I n 2004 , Ca lif

or nia c hose to subm

it re vis ion s to the S outh C oa st p ortio n of the Ca lif or nia O zo ne S IP , inc lud ing r ev isi ons to the a tta inmen t de m onstratio n a nd the re la te d c ontro l strate gyf

or a ch ie vin g th e sta ndardby201 0, a nd n ew m oto r ve hic le emis si on s b ud ge ts to en su re co nt in ue d fe de ral fun di ng fortra ns po rta ti on pro jects . See PE R 010–0 11. Following California’ s volu ntarywithdraw al of keymeasures upon w hic h th e re vis ion s r el ie d, E PAult im at el y appr ove d on lyc erta in p ortio ns o f the sub mitt edr ev isi ons an d di sappr ove d othe rs . P E R 0 01. S ign if ic an tly , a ll the el emen ts tha t E PAdis ap pr ove d, suc h a s th e 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n, w er e dis cr et ion ary r ev isi ons to p re vio usl y -appr ove d S IPe le m en ts, whi ch th us rem ai ne d i n e ffec t. In their consolid ated petitions for r eview, Petitioners challenge several aspects of E PA ’ s action. Fir st, theyclaim that, upon disapp roving th e re vised attainm ent dem onstration , E PAshoul d have required California to submit a new plan dem onstrating attainm ent of the 1-hour ozone stand ard. Sec ond, Petitioners as se rt that E PA ’ s appr ova l of

apartic ular state mea sur e, the P es tic ide E le m en t, Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 16 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378G ro und- le ve l oz one is not e mitt eddir ec tlyint o th e ai r, but is fo rmedthr ough / 3 phot oc he mic al r ea ct ion s in the a tm osph er e inv olv ing dir ec tly -e mitt edV O Cs a nd

x x oxi de s of nitro ge n ( “ N O ”) . V O C and N O are of te n r ef er re d to a s oz one pr ec ur sor e miss ion s. 5 was un la wfu l b ecau se it“ la ck s an en fo rcea bl e co mmit m en t t o a do ptreg ul at io ns ,” an d th at a s ac onse que nc e “ the Co urt sh oul d va cate E PA ’ s appr ova l of the 200 3 State S trategy .” Pet. Br. at 47. F inally , P etitioners claim that EP A a cted contrary to section 18 2(d)(1)(A ) of the A ct by finding th at, because Calif ornia showed that ag gr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s w ill de cr ea se e ac h y ear thr oughthe a tta inmen t y ear of 201 0, Ca lif

or nia w as not r eq uir edto subm

it tr an sporta tio n c ontro l m eas ur es to offse t g ro wth in ve hi cl e mil es tra ve le d. STA TEM ENT OF FA CTS I. STATUT ORY AND REGULATORY BACK GROUND A. The C lean A ir A ct and National A m bient AirQuality Stand ards T he Cl ea n A ir

A ct , 42 U . S. C. §§ 7 401– 7671 q, e stabli she s ac om pr eh en siv e pr ogr am f or c ontro lli ng a nd i m

pr ovi ng the na tio n’ s a ir

qua lity thr oughboth st at e an d f ed er al r eg ulatio n. T he A ct r eq uir es E PAto es tabli sh N at ion al A m bie nt A ir Q ua lity S ta ndard s ( “ N A A Q S” ) fo r ai r pol lut an ts that i t de te rm ine s m ayr ea sonably be a nti ci pa te d to e nda nge r publ ic he al th o r w el fare . 42 U . S. C. §§ 7 408– 09. O ne T he 1979 “ 1- of the pollut ants for w hich EPAhas established NAA QS is ozone. / 3 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 17 of 76 DktEntry: 71193786

hour ” oz one standardse t the a cc ep table le ve l f or oz one in the a m

bie nt a ir a t 0. 12 pa rts pe r mil li on , ave rag ed ov er i nt erv al s o f on e h ou r. RER 0 01 . U nde r the A ct , S ta te s ha ve the prim ary r es pons ibi lity f or e nsuring that the ir am bie nt a ir mee ts the N A A Q S. 42 U . S. C. § 74 07( a) . E ac h S ta te ’ s c om pr eh en siv e ap pr oa chf

or a tta ini ng the N A A Q S is s et f orth i n aS IPthat pr ovi de s f or the im ple m en ta tio n, m ai nte na nc e an d e nf or ce m en t of

the N A A Q S in e ac h “ ai r qua lity co ntr ol r eg ion ” w ith in tha t S ta te . 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( a) . E ve ryS IPor S IPr ev isi on m ust be a dopt edbythe S ta te a ft er r ea sonable not ic e an d he aring a nd m ust be subm itt edto E PAf

or appr ova l. 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( a) (1 ). T he ge ne ra l r eq uir emen ts fo r SI Ps are se t f

orth i n 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( a) (2 ), a nd i nc lud e en fo rc eable e miss ion s li mit at io ns an d o th er co nt ro l m ech an is m s t o m eetth e req ui rem en ts of t he CAA, en fo rc emen t pr ogr am s, a nd a ssu ra nc es of a de quate pe rs onne l, f

undi ng a nd au th or it y to carr y ou t t he SIP. B. N on at ta in m en t A re as E PAini tia llyde sig na te s vari ous ar ea s of the c ountrya s “ atta inmen t” or

“ nonattain m ent,” dependin g on whether theymet the N AA QS for a particular pol lut an t. 42 U . S. C. § 74 07( d) . I n a ddi tio n to thege ne ra l r eq uir emen ts s et f orth in 42 U.S .C. § 7410 (a)( 2), S IPs for are as designated “ nonattain m ent” for particular po ll ut an ts , su ch as o zo ne , m us t i nc lu de pro vi si on s as setfor th in 42 U.S.C. § 7 50 2. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 18 of 76 DktEntry: 71193787

T he A ct a lso c ont ai ns s pe ci fi c re qui re m en ts f or oz one non atta inmen t are as , w hic h de pe nd o n th e se ve ri tyof the oz one pr obl em

in theare a. 42 U . S. C. §§ 75 11 –1 1f . Soo n a fte r th es e p ro vi si on s wer e ad de d a s p artof t he 19 90 CAA Amendm ents, E PApubli shed in th e Fe deral Re gister a detailed guidance docum ent, r efer

red to as the “ Ge neral Pr eam ble,” discuss ing ho w the A gency ex pe ct ed th es e n ew req ui rem en ts wou ld be im pl em en te d. Se e RER 0 45 –0 46 . C. EP A R eview of St ate P lans and R evisions U nde r the A ct , S ta te s ha ve “ the prim ary r es pons ibi lity f or f or m ulatin g pollu tion con trol strategies.” Union Elec . C o. v. EP A, 427 U.S . 246, 256 (1976); se e 42 U . S. C. § 74 07( a) ( the A ct giv es S ta te s th e “ pr im ary r es pons ibi lity f or as suring a ir

qua lity ” thr oughS IP s) . S ta te s are r es pons ibl e fo r subm itt ing the ir pla ns t o E PAf

or r ev ie w , a nd the y m

ust “ spe ci fythe m an ne r” in w hic h th ei r pla ns w ill a ch ie ve the N A A Q S. 42 U . S. C. § 74 07( a) . S IP s ne ednot be sub mitt eda s a w hol e, but

m aybe sub mitt edpie ce -b y -p ie ce . H al l v. E PA , 273 F . 3d 1 146, 115 9 (9 th C ir . 200 1) ( “ T he A ct pr ovi de s f

or pie ce m ea l su bmiss ion of S IPr ev isi ons, inc lud ing a tta inmen t de m onstratio ns” ). L ike w ise , S IP s m aybe appr ove d or di sa pp ro ve d p ie ce-b y -p ie ce. 4 2 U.S.C. § 74 10 (k )(3 ). EP A r eviews the various SIP elements sub mitted by States at diff erent times an d f or dif fe re nt p urpose s. S ee H al l v. E PA , 273 F . 3d at 11 59. T he A ct se ts f orth Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 19 of 76 DktEntry: 71193788

spe ci fi c time fr ames a nd p ro ce dur es that appl y to E PA ’ s r ev ie w a nd a ct ion on s ta te subm iss ion s. 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) . S ec tio n 74 10( k) auth or iz es E PAto: ( 1) f ull y ap pr ove the pla n; ( 2) partia llyappr ove a nd p artia llydis ap pr ove the pla n; o r (3 ) co ndi tio na llyappr ove the pla n. I d. § 74 10( k) (3 )– (4 ). I n a ddi tio n, if aS ta te f ai ls t o su bmita pl an req ui red by the Act, EPA m ay is su e a fi nd in g o f fai lu re t o s ub mit . Id . § 75 09( a) (1 ). O nc e ap pr ove d, S IP s be co m e en fo rc eable a s f ed er al la w . I d. § 7 41 3. D. Sanctions and Fe deral Im plem entat ion Plans E PA ’ s f ind ing that a

S ta te f ai le d to sub mit a re qui re d pl an , or it s dis ap pr ova l of

ar eq uir edpla n, trigg er s ati m e pe ri od ( know n a s th e “ sa nc tio ns clock”) w ithin which the State m ust either remedy the deficiencyor fac e consequences such as emissio ns offsets or highway funding sanctions. 42 U. S. C. § 75 09( a) ; i d. § 75 09( b) ( de sc ri bin g sa nc tio ns) . S pe ci fi ca lly , if the S ta te f

ai ls t o m ak e up f

or the de fi ci en cyw ith in e igh te en m onths, the e miss ion s of fs et sa nc tio n ap pl ie s, an d s ix m on th s l at er, h ig hwa y fun di ng san ct io ns ap pl y . Id.; 40 C.F.R. § 52.31. T he sanctions con tinue un til EPAdetermines that the State has remedied th e S I P d e f

i c i e n c y. Se co nd, suc h af

ind ing of f ai lur e to s ubm

it or dis ap pr ova l a lso trigg er s a tim e period (known as the “ FIPclock”) bythe end of which E PAm ust either Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 20 of 76 DktEntry: 71193789

approve a plan submitted by the State that meets the applicable requirements or prom ulgate a Feder al Im

plem entation Plan (“ FIP ”). 42 U. S. C. § 741 0(c)( 1). EP A m ust promulgate the FIP w ithin two y ears unless EP A approves a new plan su bmis si on forwhi ch th e fi nd in g o r di sa pp ro va l was m ad e. Id . E. “S IPC all s” O nc e E PAha s f

ull y appr ove d aS IPa s mee tin g th e statut ory r eq uir emen ts o f the A ct , the S ta te ha s no f urthe r obl igatio n un de r the A ct to oth er w ise a ddr es s those requirem ents. H owever , under C AAsection 110 (k)(5), 42 U. S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ), E PAm ayc hoos e at a nyti m e to r ev ie w a n appr ove d S IP . I f, upo n re vie w , E PAde te rm

ine s th at the appr ove d S IPis “ subs ta nti al lyina de quate ” to, among oth er

thi ngs, a tta in o r m ai nta in a n a ir qua lity standard , the n E PA“ sha ll require the State to revise the plan as necessaryto correc t such inadequ acies. ” This is known as a “ SIPCall. ” T hus, if E PAexerc ises its dis cretion to review an ap pr ove d S IPa nd f

ind s it “ subs ta nti al lyina de quate , ” E PAm ust r eq uir e the S ta te to co rrec t t he ap pr ov ed pl an . F. Transportat ion Conf orm ity In the 199 0 C A A A m en dmen ts, Co ngr es s r es pond edto the a ir pol lut ion s t e mm i n g f r o m h i g h w a y an d tr a n s i tp r o je c t s b y e n a c t i n g r e v i s e d “ c o n f o r mi t y” re qui re m en ts w ithw hic h tr an sporta tio n pl an s a nd p ro gr am s th at c ont ai n Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 21 of 76 DktEntry: 711937810

transportation proje cts m ust com ply . 42 U. S. C. § 750 6(c). CA A sec tion 1 76(c) int eg rate s th e A ct ’ s a ir

qua lity pla nni ng p ro ce ss w iththe sur fa ce tr an sporta tio n pla nni ng p ro ce ss. G en er al ly , und er the se r eq uir emen ts the f

ed er al gov ernmen t m aynot appr ove , a cc ep t or

f und an y tr an sporta tio n pl an , pr ogr am or pr oj ec t un le ss itco nf or m s t o t he ap pl ic ab le SIP. Id . § 7 50 6( c)(2 ). E PA ’ s im ple m en tin g r eg ulatio ns e stabli sh d et ai le d c ri te ri a fo r de te rm ini ng whether a transportation plan o r proj ect conform s to an applicable SIP. 40 C.F .R. §§ 9 3. 108– 93. 115. E ac h c ontro l strate gyS IP( inc lud ing a tta inmen t de m onstratio n SI Ps ) m ust ide nti fythe tot al a llo w ab le e miss ion s c onsi ste nt w ithmee tin g th e ap pli cable statut ory r eq uir emen t, a nd m ust a llo cate that t ota l a m ong the vari ous ty pe s of sou rc es . T he spe ci fi c al loc at ion to hig hw aya nd tra nsi t ve hic le use a nd em iss ion s is r ef

er re d to a s th e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s bu dge t, or “ MV E B. ” 40 C. F. R. § 93 . 101. U nde r E PA ’ s r eg ulatio ns, tr an sporta tio n a ge nc ie s r el y on MV E Bs , f

ounda de quate or

appr ove d byE PA , to m ak e co nf or mityde te rm

inatio ns fo r tr an sporta tio n pl an s a nd p ro gr am s. T o a voi d un ne ce ssarydis ru pti on i n hi ghw aya nd tra nsi t pr oj ec ts d ur ing the period for E PAreview of the submitted SIP, EP A r egulation s provid e that E PA m aym ak e pr el iminary“ ad eq ua cy ” de te rm inatio ns r eg ar din g M V E Bs se t f orth therein. See 40 C.F. R. § 93.118. EP A w ill determine “ adequate” a budget Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 22 of 76 DktEntry: 711937811

inc lud edin a subm

itt ed( but not y et appr ove d) S IPif

c erta in c ri te ri a se t f

orth at 40 C. F. R. § 93 . 118( e) (4 ) ar e m et . Abud ge t tha t ha s be en de te rm ine d to be

“ adequate” m

ust be used for conformity determination s. E PA ’ s adequacy determination is based on a preliminaryreview of the SI P submittal, but after further r eview E PAm aydeclare the MVE B to be inadequate. 40 C. F. R. § 93.118(e)(3). Further, even if E PAfinds MVE Bs to be adequate, the S IP su bmit ta l (a nd rel at ed MVEBs ) co ul d l at er b e d is ap pr ov ed . II. HISTOR Y O F O Z ONE RE GUL ATIONIN T HE SO UTH CO AS T A . Th e 1994 C ali fo rn ia O zo ne S IP Su bst an tia l a m en dmen ts t o th e CA A in 1990 se t ne w pla nni ng r eq uir emen ts an d a tt ai nm en t d ead li ne s fo r th e NAAQS, in cl ud in g t he 1-h ou r oz on e st an da rd . A m ong the ne w r eq uir emen ts w as am an da te f or c erta in n onatta inmen t are as to subm it SI P re vis ion s de m onstratin g a tta inmen t of the oz one standardbythe ap pl ic ab le att ai nm en t d at e. 42 U.S.C. § 7 51 1a (c)( 2) (A); id . § 7 51 1a (e). An

“ atta inmen t de m onstratio n” inc lud es both ac ontro l strate gya nd a ir qua lity m ode lin g sh ow ing that the c ontro l strate gyis suf fi ci en t t o r ed uc e em

iss ion s to levels where violatio ns of the NA AQ S w ould not occur by the attainm ent date. Pu rs ua nt t o th e A ct

a s a m en de d in 199 0, E PAc la ssi fi edthe S outh C oa st oz one non atta inmen t are a as “ ex tr eme” f or 1- hour oz one , w itha n a tta inmen t Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 23 of 76 DktEntry: 711937812

deadline of Novem

ber 15, 2010. Se e 56 Fed. Reg. 56,694, 56,726 (Nov. 6, 1991); 42 U. S. C. § 751 1(a)( 1). In response, the Ca lifornia Air Resources Boar d (“ CA RB ”) sub mitt edaS IPr ev isi on o n N ove m be r 15, 199 4 ( “ 1994 Ca lif or nia O zo ne S IP ”) that i nc lud ed , a m ong m an y oth er e le m en ts, the a tta inmen t dem onstration for the S outh Coast “ extreme” ozone nonattainm ent area . That attainm ent dem onstration relied upon ph otochemical m odeling and the local statio narysou rc e an d tr an sporta tio n- re la te d c ontro l strate gyc ont ai ne d in the S outh Co as t A ir Q ua lity Ma na ge men t D istri ct ’ s ( “ SC A Q MD ’ s” ) 1994 S outh C oa st A ir Q ua lity Ma na ge m en t P la n ( “ A Q MP ”) , a nd a lso upo n astate c ontro l strate gy fo cu se d o n m ob il e so ur ces , con su m er p ro du ct s, an d p es ti ci de us e. In 199 7, E PAtoo k f

ina l a ct ion to ap pr ove vari ous el emen ts o f the 199 4 Ca lif or nia O zo ne S IP , inc lud ing the oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n f or the S outh Co as t an d t he st at e an d l oc al st rat eg ie s u po n wh ic h t he de m on st rat io n re li ed . RER 130. T he “ Pe sti ci de E le m en t” w as a m ong the spe ci fi c state mea sur es appr ove d by E PA . I d. a t 13 3. T he P es tic ide E le m en t w as de sig ne d to r ed uc e V O C e miss ion s fro m ag ric ul tu ral an d c omm erci al st ru ct ur al pe st ic id e ap pl ic at io ns . PER 25 6. B. Th e 1997 /19 99 S ou th C oast Oz on e SI P A ft er E PAappr ove d th e 1994 Ca lif or nia O zo ne S IP , inc lud ing the 199 4 So uth Co as t A Q MP , CA RB sub mitt edar ev ise d S outh C oa st A Q MPto E PAon Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 24 of 76 DktEntry: 711937813

Fe bruary5, 199 7. T his 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MPw as not f ed er al lyr eq uir edf

or oz one , but

w as sub mitt edto m odi fythe c ommitmen ts a s se t f orth i n th e 1994 So uth Co as t A Q MP . S pe ci fi ca lly , the S CA Q MD sou ght to ab an don, r el ax , or po st po ne ap pr ox im at el y 30 meas ur es ap pr ov ed in th e o zo ne SIP. See RER 1 37 . T he 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MPa lso inc lud edupd at ede miss ion s in ve nto ri es , up da te d g ro wth pro

jecti on s, an d arev is ed oz on e at ta in m en t d em on st rat io n. In 199 9, E PApr opos edappr ova l of c erta in p ortio ns o f the 199 7 S outh Coast AQ MP and disapproval of certain other portions. Specific ally , E PA pr opos eddis ap pr ova l of

the c ha nge s to S CA Q MD ’ s c ommitmen ts a s se t f orth i n the 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MPa s a n im pe rm iss ibl e re la xa tio n of

pr ev iou sly ap pr ove d c ontro l strate gie s. S ee id. a t 14 0. E PAa lso pr opos edto dis ap pr ove the atta inmen t de m onstratio n in the 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MP , not be cause of de fi ci en ci es in the pho toc he mic al m ode lin g a na ly sis , but be cause of

it s r el ia nc e on the im permissib ly relaxed S CAQ MD c ontrol st rategy . In its 199 9 propos ed rule, E PAa ddr es se d th e co nse que nc es of af ina l di sappr ova l of

the c ontro l strate gya nd attainm ent dem onstration in the 199 7 South Coast AQMP : “ As discussed above, the partial disapproval of the ozon e SI P re visio n does no t trigger m andatory sa nc tio ns u nde r CA A se ct ion 179 , sin ce E PA ’ s appr ova l of the 199 4 S outh C oa st oz on e p la n wi th res pe ctto th e sa m e req ui rem en ts rem ai ns in for ce.” Id . at 1 44 . Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 25 of 76 DktEntry: 711937814

L at er that sam e y ear, the S CA Q MD a m en de d th e oz one portio n of the 199 7 S outh Co as t A Q MPin re spon se to E PA ’ s pr opos eda ct ion . In 200 0, E PAtoo k f

ina l a ct ion to ap pr ove the e miss ion s in ve nto ri es a nd oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in the 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MP , a s a m en de d in 1999 . S ee RE R 1 46–1 49. U pon thi s appr ova l, the f ull y appr ove d oz one attainm ent dem onstration for the S outh Coast consisted o f the photochemical m ode lin g a na ly sis f

ro m the 199 7 S outh C oa st A Q MP , the S CA Q MD c ontro l str at eg y f ro m the 199 9 a m en dmen t t o th e 1997 S outh C oa st A Q MP , the state co ntr ol s tr at eg y f

ro m the 199 4 C al if

or nia O zo ne P la n, a nd c erta in tra nspo rt at ion

rel at ed co nt ro l m eas ur es an d c ommit m en ts fro m th e 1 99 4 S ou th Co as t AQMP . T ak en tog ethe r as suc h, the appr ove d S outh C oa st o zo ne a tta inmen t pl an is refe rred to as the “ 1997 /199 9 South Coast Ozone SIP .” C . Th e 2003 S ta te S tr at eg y and th e 2003 South C oast AQM P On January9, 2004, CA RB submitted two SIPrevisions. First, CA RB submitted the “ Final 2003 State a nd Federal S trategyfor the Ca lifornia SIP ” (“ 2003 State S trategy ”), which identified CA RB’ s regulatory agenda to reduce oz one in al l are as of

Ca lif or nia by201 0. A s origi na llysub mitt ed , the 200 3 S ta te Strate gyw as int en de d, in part , to update a nd e nti re lyr ep la ce the state ’ s strate gy Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 26 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378In 200 8, S CA Q MD sup ple m en te d th e 2003 A Q MPw ithade m onst ratio n / 4 show ing a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s r ed uc tio ns e ac h y ear fr om 200 3 thr ough201 0. P E R 2 94. 15 (a s se t f orth i n th e 1994 Ca lif

or nia O zo ne S IP ) fo r re duc ing oz one in the S outh Co as t. L ike the 1997 Second, C ARB submitted the 200 3 South Coast AQMP . / 4 South Coast AQM P, the 2003 South Coast AQ MP w as not a federa lly required plan for ozone. T he 2003 AQ MP w as submitted in lig ht of new photochemical m odeling performed by the SCA QMD , purporting to sh ow the need f or addition al em iss ion s r ed uc tio ns, a nd t o e stabli sh n ew m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s bu dge ts and the re bya voi d atr an sporta tio n c onf or mitylapse a nd a sso ci at edf ed er al f undi ng los se s. P E R 1 12–1 3. T he r ev ise d a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in the 200 3 S outh Co as t A Q MPr el ie d up on a ddi tio na l S CA Q MD c ontro l mea sur es a nd co mmitmen ts, a nd a lso r el ie d up on the c ommitmen ts b y the state in the 200 3 S ta te Strate gy . L at er

that y ear, E PAf

oundthe m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s bu dge ts i n th e 2003 S outh C oa st A Q MP“ ad eq ua te ” fo r purpose s of the A ct ’ s tr an sporta tio n co nf or mityr eq uir emen ts, mea nin g th eyc oul d be use d f or tr an sporta tio n pl an nin g Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 27 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Si nc e that pr el iminarya de qua cyde te rm inatio n, the se 1- hour

oz one bud ge ts h av e / 5 be en su pe rced ed by 8-h ou r oz on e b ud ge ts th atEPA has fou nd ad eq ua te . See RER 22 9, as co rrec te d i n R ER 23 2. 16 purpose s e ve n th oughE PAha d no t y et m ad e a fi na l de ci sio n w he the r to appr ove or dis ap pr ove the tw o S IPr ev isi ons, se e 40 C . F. R. § 93 . 118( e) . S ee P E R 3 10. / 5 In 2008, prior to EPAaction on the 20 03 State Strategy , C ARB withdrew m an y of the S tr at eg y ’ s ke y e le m en ts. P E R 2 89–9 0. A s ac onse que nc e, the onl y re m ai nin g e le m en ts o f the pla n w er e co mmitmen ts b y state a ge nc ie s to pur sue ce rt ai n ne ar -t erm

de fi ne d c ontro l mea sur es , a nd t o c ont inu e im ple m en ta tio n of

the Pesticide E lement from

the 1994 California O zone SIP . See PE R 012. CA RB al so w ith dr ew the tr an sporta tio n c ontro l mea sur e el emen t of the 200 3 S outh C oa st AQMP. PER 2 96 . O n O ct obe r 24, 200 8, E PApr opos edto ap pr ove w ha t r em ai ne d of the 200 3 St at e Strate gya nd t o appr ove in part , a nd t o di sappr ove in part , the 200 3 S outh Co as t A Q MP . P E R 0 08. W ithr es pe ct to the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y , E PAe xpl ai ne d:

“ W e propose to approv e the State ’ s commitm ents with respect to the near -term de fi ne d mea sur es , not

a s f ulf ill ing a nypartic ular re qui re m en t un de r the CA A , but as st ren gt he ni ng of t he So ut h C oa stpo rti on of t he Cal ifo rn iaSIP.” PER 0 14 . A spe ci fi c co ntr ol s tr at eg y , ide nti fi edbythe S ta te a s “ PE ST -1 , ” w as a m ong tho se co mmitmen ts p ro pose d f

or appr ova l byE PA . P E ST -1 sim plyc al ls f or c ont inu ed Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 28 of 76 DktEntry: 711937817

im ple m en ta tio n of

the P es tic ide E le m en t appr ove d byE PAin 1997 . I n th e p ro p o s ed ru l e, EP A e x p l ai n ed i t s p ro p o s ed ap p ro v al o f P ES T- 1 as fo l l o ws : “ We int er pr et our appr ova l of

thi s mea sur e as m ai nta ini ng the status quo w ithr es pe ct to the existing pesticide strategy (i. e. , the S IP w ill contin ue to reflec t the strategy as ap pr ov ed by E PA in 19 97 ).” PER 0 13 , n.1 . W ithr es pe ct

to the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MP , E PApr opos edto ap pr ove the SC A Q MD ’ s c ontro l strate gya s S IP -s tr en gth en ing , but pr opos edto dis ap pr ove the atta inmen t de m onstratio n be cause of it s r el ia nc e on v ariou s st at e co mmitmen ts or ig in al ly inc lu de d i n t he 20 03 Sta te Str at eg y bu t l at er wi th dr awn by CARB. PER

x 014– 015. E PApr opos edto dis ap pr ove the V O C and N O m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s budg et s f or oz one that i t ha d pr ev iou slyf ounda de quate be cause , giv en the w ith dr aw al byCA RB of

state c ommitmen ts u pon w hic h th e budg et s w er e ba se d,

“ the pla n r ev isi on a s aw hol e doe s no t pr ovi de f or [ re as onable f

urthe r pr ogr es s] an d a tt ai nm en t.” PER 01 8. E PAa lso pr opos edto ap pr ove the S ta te ’ s de m onstratio n th at no tr an sporta tio n c ontro l mea sur es to of fs et gr ow th i n e miss ion s f

ro m gr ow th i n vehicle miles traveled or grow th in th e num ber of vehicle trips ar e re quired und er 4 2 U.S .C . § 7 5 1 1 a( d )( 1 )( A) . EP A’s p ro p o s ed ap p ro v al wa s b as ed o n th e S t at e’s dem onstration that there w ill be no su ch growth in emissio ns, and instead that Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 29 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Section 307(d) of the CAA , 42 U .S .C. § 7607 (d), which specifies detailed

/ 6 procedures that EP A m

ust follo w f

or certain rulem akings, does no t apply here because the rulem aking at issu e w as not one lis ted in 42 U.S .C. § 7 60 7( d) (1 )(A)– (V). 18 aggregate vehicle em

issio ns will decline eac h y ear from the base y ear of the plan th ro ug h t he att ai nm en t year of 2 01 0. Id . EPA exp la in ed th e co ns eq ue nc es of i ts pro po se d p art ia l d is ap pr ov al : “ No sa nc tio ns c loc ks o r FI P re qui re m en t w oul d be trigg er edbyour dis ap pr ova ls, if finalized, because the approved SIP alrea dy contains the plan elements that we are propos ing to disapprov e. Adisapprov al of the re visio ns to th e alre ady -approved elements would notalter the f act that the SI P alre ady meets these statutory re qui re m en ts. ” P E R 0 19. O n M ar ch10, 200 9, a ft er c onsi de ratio n of

pub lic co mm en ts o n th e pr opos edrule , E PAf ina liz eda ct ion on the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y an d 2 00 3 S ou th Co as t AQMP as p ro po se d. PER 0 01 . STA ND AR D O F R EVIE W A cha ll en ge to EPA act io n u nd er s ect io n 3 07 (b ) of th e CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b ), is re vie w edund er the w el l- es tabli she d “ ar

bitrarya nd c ap ri ci ous” standard of the Administrative Procedure A ct (“ AP A” ), 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2)(A ). / 6 See Alaska D ep’ t of E nvt’l C onservation v. E PA , 540 U. S. 461, 496– 97 (2004 ); V igi l v. L ea vitt, 381 F . 3d 8 26, 833 ( 9th Ci r. 200 4) . T his standard“ is n ar ro w a nd a Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 30 of 76 DktEntry: 711937819

co urt i s no t t o su bst itu te it s j udgmen t f or that of the a ge nc y . ” Mo tor

V eh ic le Mf

rs . Ass’ n, Inc. v. S tate Farm

Mut. A uto Ins. Co., 463 U.S . 29, 43 (1983 ). Indeed, an ag en cy ’ s de te rm

inatio ns m

ust be uph el d if

the y “ co nf

or m ‘ to c erta in m

ini m um st an da rd s o f rat io na li ty.’ ” Sm al l Re fin er Lead Ph as e-Do wn Tas k F or ce v . EPA, 70 5 F .2d 50 6, 5 21 (D.C. Cir . 19 83 ) (ci ta ti on omit te d) . An agencyaction is arbitraryand capricious only “ if the agencyhas relied on f ac tor s w hic h C ongr es s ha s no t i nte nde d it to co nsi de r, e nti re lyf

ai le d to co nsi de r an im

porta nt a spe ct

of the pr obl em , ” of

fe re d a n e xpl an at ion f

or it s de ci sio n th at

runs co unt er

to the e vid en ce be fo re the a ge nc y , or is so i m plausi ble that it could not be ascribed to a differ ence in view or the product of agency ex pe rtise . Mo tor

V eh ic le Mf

rs . A ss’ n, 463 U . S. a t 43 . A r ev ie w ing c ourt m aynot se t a sid e ag en cya ct ion mer el y be cause the c ourt w oul d ha ve de ci de d th e iss ue dif fe re ntl y , so l ong as the a ge nc y ha s c onsi de re d th e re le va nt f ac tor s a nd o ff

er eda ratio na l e xpl an at ion f

or it s a ct ion . C iti ze ns t o P re se rv e O ve rt on P ark, I nc . v. Vol pe , 40 1 U.S. 4 02 , 41 6 (1 97 1) . Questions of statuto ryinterpretation are governed bythe two-step test set fo rth inCh ev ro n U . S. A . , I nc . v. N RD C, 467 U . S. 837 , 842 –43 (1 984) . U nde r the fi rs t st ep , the r ev ie w ing c ourt m ust de te rm ine “ w he the r Co ngr es s ha s di re ct ly spok en to the precise question at iss ue.” Id. at 842. If congression al intent is clear Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 31 of 76 DktEntry: 711937820

fr om the statut ory la ngua ge , the inq uiry e nds. I d. a t 84 2–43 . I f the statut e is s ile nt o r a m b i g u o u s o n th e p ar t i cu l ari s s u e, th e C o u rtm u s tac ce p tth e a g en cy’s int er pr et at ion if

it is re as onable ; the a ge nc y ’ s in te rp re ta tio n ne ednot r ep re se nt the onl y pe rm

iss ibl e re ad ing of

the statut e nor

the r ea din g th at

the Co urt migh t or igi na llyha ve giv en it . I d. a t 84 3 & n. 11; Ch em ic al Mf rs . A ss’ n v. N RD C, 470 U . S. 116 , 125 ( 1985 ); se e al so L es lie S al t C o. v. U nit edS tate s, 55 F . 3d 1 388, 139 4 (9 th Cir . 19 95 ). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT T he Co urt sh oul d de nythe pe tit ion s be cause E PA ’ s a ct ion s w er e re as onable an d c on si st en t wi th th e Cl ean Air Act . Fi rs t, upo n di sappr ovi ng the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MP ’ s 1- hour oz one atta inmen t de m onstratio n, E PAw as not obl ige d to r eq uir e a ne w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n, to start

sa nc tio ns c loc ks, or

to de ve lop aF IP . T he A ct pr ovi de s a specific process, a “ SIPcall, ” bywhich E PAm aym andate revisions to approved SIP s. T he SIPcall process is initiated when E PAexerc ises its dis cretion to review an e xis tin g, appr ove d S IP . A t i ssu e he re is E PA ’ s r ev ie w of ane w sub miss ion fr om the S ta te , a nd E PA ’ s r ev ie w of that su bmiss ion didnot

e nta il a re vie w of

the ad eq ua cyof

the e xis tin g S IP . T hus, be cause E PA ’ s r ev ie w of the ne w sub miss ion didnot inv olv e re vie w of

the a de qua cyof

the e xis tin g S IP , the re w as no b as is f or Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 32 of 76 DktEntry: 711937821

issui ng a SIP call, which is the sole means for r equiring a State to submit a new SIPfor an obligation th at it has alrea dy fulfilled. Petitioners cannot com pel a SI P ca ll unde r an y c ir cu m sta nc es , partic ularl y w he re , a s he re , the e xis tin g S IPw as not unde r re vie w . B ec au se E PAha s a lr ea dyappr ove d th e oz one a tta inmen t dem onstration for the S outh Coast (i. e. , the 1997/19 99 South Coast Oz one SIP) , Cal ifo rn iaha s m etth e ap pl ic ab le req ui rem en t i n s ect io n 1 82 (c)( 2) (A) o f th e CAA, 42 U . S. C. § 75 11a (c )( 2) (A ). O nlyade te rm inatio n byE PAund er

CA A se ct ion 110( k) (5 ), 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ), that the appr ove d S IPis “ subs ta nti al ly ina de quate ” – af

ind ing that ha s no t be en m ad e – c oul d trigg er a n ob lig at ion f

or the state to subm

it a ne w 1- hour

oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n. B ec au se the CA A doe s no t r eq uir e St at es to pe ri odi ca llyr ev ise the ir a tta inmen t de m onstratio ns ev en w he re the S ta te de ci de s th at ar ev isi on i s w ar

ra nte d, E PA ’ s di sappr ova l of the State’ s discretionary submissio n of a new attainm ent dem onstration did no t trigger an y req ui rem en t t o i m

po se san ct io ns or p ro m

ul ga te a FIP. Seco nd , Pet it io ne rs lac k s ta nd in g t o c ha ll en ge EPA’ s ap pr ov al of P EST-1, a spe ci fi c str at eg y inc lud edin the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y . E PA ’ s a ct ion w ithr es pe ct to PE ST -1 in the 200 9 rule m aking didnot c au se , nor

c oul d af av or ab le ruli ng b y thi s Co urt r ed re ss, P et iti one rs ’ a lle ge d in j ur ie s be cause P E ST -1 didnot m odi fythe ex ist ing P es tic ide E le m en t i n th e ap pr ove d S IP . B ec au se the P es tic ide E le m en t Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 33 of 76 DktEntry: 711937822

w as a lr ea dypart

of the appr ove d S IPthat the S ta te w as r eq uir edto im ple m en t, it wo u l d h av e r emai n ed i n ef fe ctwh et h erEP A ap p ro v ed o r d i s ap p ro v ed th e S t at e’s 2 0 0 3 c o mmi t me n tt o c o n t i n u e i mp l e me n t i n g th a tp r o g r a m. Fi na lly , E PAr ea sonablyint er pr et edse ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) of the CA A , 42 U . S. C. § 75 11a (d )( 1) (A ), w hic h r eq uir es S ta te s on lyto ad opt tr an sporta tio n co ntr ol mea sur es ( “ T CM s” ) to “ of fs et a nygr ow th i n e miss ion s” f ro m gr ow th i n ve hic le mile s tr av el edor

num be rs of ve hic le trips ; i t do es not

r eq uir e Ca lif

or nia to submit such offsetting TC Ms wher e the State dem onstrates, as Ca lifornia did here, that a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s w ill de cr ea se e ac h y ear thr oughthe at ta in m en t year. ARGUMENT I. EP A H AS AL REA DY AP PR OVE D C ALIF ORN IA’S PL AN FO R ATTAI NMENT OF TH E 1 -HO UR OZ ONE ST ANDARD, AND HAS NO PRESENT DUTY TO REQUI RE A NEW ATT AINMENT DEM ONS TRA TION The Cle an Air Actreq ui res th atSIPs pro vi de foratt ai nm en t o f th e NAAQS. 42 U. S. C. § 741 0(a)( 2)(A ). In 1990, Congress amended the CAAto require State s t o s u b mi tt o EP A, i n th e f o rm of a S IP re v i s i o n , “ [a ] de m o n s tra t i o n th atth e [ SI P], as r ev ise d, w ill pr ovi de f

or a tta inmen t of

the oz one [ N A A Q S] bythe appl ic ab le atta inmen t date . ” I d. § 75 11a (c )( 2) (A ). T o c om plyw iththi s m an da te , Ca lif or nia Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 34 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Fo r “ ex tre m e” 1 -h ou r oz on e n on at ta in men t ar eas su ch as t he So ut h C oa st , CAA

/ 7 se ct ion 181 (a ) se ts N ove m be r 15, 201 0 a s th e out sid e de ad lin e fo r atta inmen t of the 1-hour ozone NAA QS . 23 subm itt edaS IPr ev isi on i n 19 94 tha t i nc lud eda n a tta inmen t de m onstratio n f or the So uth Co as t f

or the 1- hour

oz one N A A Q S. E PAappr ove d th at a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in 199 7, RE R 0 97, upo n f ind ing that i t pr ovi de d f

or a tta inmen t of C al if or nia late r ch ose to amen d po rtion s of the 1- hour

oz one N A A Q S by201 0. / 7 the previousl y -approved ozone attainm ent dem onstration , a nd EPAapproved that rev is ed de m on st rat io n i n 2 00 0. RER 1 46 . In 200 3, Ca lif

or nia a ga in c hose to amen d it s 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n f

or the S outh C oa st. I n th e Marc h 10 , 200 9, rule m aking a t i ssu e in the se pe tit ion s, E PAdis ap pr ove d th is n ew a tta inmen t de m onstratio n be cause control m easures in the 2003 State Strategyupon which that dem onstration relied ha d be en w ith dr aw n bythe S ta te in earl y 200 8. A bse nt the se c ontro l mea sur es , E PAde te rm

ine d th at the ne w es t atta inmen t de m onstratio n c oul d no t mee t the req ui rem en ts of C AA sec ti on 18 2( c)(2 )(A), 4 2 U.S.C. § 75 11 a(c) (2 )(A). H ow ev er , E PAe xpl ai ne d th at be cause the a lr ea dy -appr ove d a tta inmen t de m onstratio ns r em ai ne d in e ff ec t, dis ap pr ova l of

the 200 3 a tta inmen t de m onstratio n di d no t tri gge r a re qui re m en t t o pr om ulg at e a FI P or

to im pose sa nc ti on s. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 35 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378T he pr ovi sio n go ve rn ing E PAr ev ie w of S IPr ev isi ons is 4 2 U . S. C. § 74 10( l ). / 8 T his se ct ion bars E PAf

ro m appr ovi ng a

S IPr ev isi on i f the “ re vis ion w oul d int er fe re w itha nyappl ic ab le r eq uir emen t c onc ernin g a tta inmen t a nd r ea sonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement” of the A ct. This places no b ur de n on E PAto pe rf or m ar ev ie w of

the appr ove d S IPto de te rm ine it s ad eq ua cy ; r athe r, E PA ’ s ob lig at ion is to r ev ie w the S IP , a s th e St at e w ish es to re vis e it, to de te rm

ine w he the r the r ev ise d pl an w ill int er fe re w itha tta inmen t or an oth er appl ic ab le r eq uir emen t. S ee ge ne ra lly , H al l v. E PA , 273 F . 3d at 11 59 (v ac at ing a nd r em an din g E PA ’ s appr ova l of aS IPr ev isi on b ec au se E PAf ai le d to explain why the revision did not int erfe re w ith CAArequirements enacted since the pr ogr am

ha d pr ev iou slybe en r ev ise d) . H er e, the sub mitt edr ev isi on i nc lud eda w hol es al e re pla ce m en t of the 1- hour

oz one a ttainmen t de m onstratio n in the (c onti n u ed ... ) 24 Pe tit ion er s c ont en d th at

the a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in the 200 3 S outh Co as t A Q MPw as “ not

dis cr et ion ary , ” Pe t. Br . a t 36 , a nd tha t up on d isappr ovi ng the 200 3 A Q MP ’ s a ttainmen t de m onstratio n E PAsho uldha ve r eq uir edCa lif or nia to s ubmit a ne w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n. P et iti one rs arg ue that E PAha d aduty to r eq uir e a ne w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in li ght of “ ne w inf or m at ion ” ind ic at ing that the pr ev iou sly -appr ove d atta inmen t de m onstratio n w as “ ine ff ec tiv e” a nd

“ pa te ntl y out

of da te . ” P et . Br . a t 35 –36. T he se arg umen ts m ust f ai l, be cause the attainm ent dem onstration in the 200 3 South Coast AQMPwa s not required und er the CA A , a nd the S ta te ’ s su bmitt al of ane w pla n do es not

trigg er a n ob lig at ion f

or EP A to re view the existing approved SIP. Rather, EP A’ s oblig ation with respect to a S IPr ev isi on i s li mite d to r ev ie w ing that su bmitt al f or c om pli an ce w iththe Onl y up on fin di ng th atan ap pr ov ed SIP i s “ su bs ta nt ia ll y in ad eq ua te ” CAA. /

8 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 36 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378(...continued)

8/ ex ist ing S IP , a nd E PAmet se ct ion 110 ( l ) bydis ap pr ovi ng the pla n be cause the state w ith dr ew m

uc h of the state str at eg y int en de d to pr ovi de the e miss ion s reductions th at it believed to be necessarybased on the up dated phot ochemical m ode lin g a na ly sis . T hus, the sub mitt eda tta inmen t de m onstratio n di d no t mee t the “ ap pli cable r eq uir emen t” of de m onstratin g a tta inmen t of the 1- hour

oz one st an da rd . 25 unde r 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ) w oul d E PAha ve auth or ityto re qui re aS ta te to re vis e an appr ove d S IP . T he rule m aking at i ssu e in this c as e didnot inv olv e an y suc h f ind ing or r ev ie w . E PAha s no c urre nt o bli ga tio n to r eq uir e the S ta te to su bmita ne w att ai nm en t d em on st rat io n. A. Noth ing in th e C AA Re quire d C alifornia to Subm it a Ne w 1-Hour Ozone A ttainm ent De m onstration in 2003, N or is EPA Obliged t o R eq ui re On e N ow Ca lif or nia ’ s S IPha s af

ed er al ly -appr ove d 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t dem onstration for the S outh Coast: the 1997 /199 9 South Coast Ozone SIP , w hich re pla ce d part

of the e arlie r- ap pr ove d a tta inmen t de m onstratio n f ro m the 199 4 So uth Co as t A Q MP . T his appr ove d de m onstratio n r em ai ns i n e ff ec t un le ss a nd unt il E PAappr ove s aS IPr ev isi on ( or pr om ulg at es aF IP ) that m odi fi es , r ep la ce s, or r es ci nds it. S ee G en er al Mo tor s C orp. v. U nit edS ta te s, 496 U . S. 530 , 541 (1990) (the “ approved SIP is the applicable im plem entation pl an during th e time a SI P re vis ion pr opos al is pe ndi ng” ); S af e A ir f or E ve ry one v. E PA , 488 F . 3d 1 088, 1097 ( 9th Ci r. 200 7) ( a SI P ap pr ove d byE PAc an not be c ha nge d “ unl es s a nd u nti l Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 37 of 76 DktEntry: 711937826

EP A approve[s] anychange”) ( em phasis add ed). Petitioners’ desire for an up da te d p la n c an no t u ps etth is st at ut or y reg im e.

1. A bs en t a f

in di ng b y E P A t ha t C ali fo rn ia’ s S IPis “su bs ta ntial ly i na de qu at e” t o at ta in t he N A A QS or otherwis e com ply w ith t he A ct, EP A c annot re quire the State to subm it a new attainm ent dem onstration. E PAis re qui re d to m an da te S IPr ev isi ons onl y a ft er it e xe rc ise s it s dis cr et ion to re vie w a n appr ove d S IPa nd f ind s th at the appr ove d S IPis

“ subs ta nti al lyina de quate to atta in o r m ai nta in the [ N A A Q S] . . . or to oth er w ise co m plyw itha nyr eq uir emen t of [ the CA A ] . ” 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ). T his a ct ion by EP A, a “ SIPcall, ” is “ [t] he proper E PAresponse to im plem entation failures (i . e. f ai lur es to atta in the N A A Q S) . ” S ta te of A ri zo nav. T hom as , 829 F . 2d 8 34, 836 (9th Cir. 1987 ). ASIPcall is the sole means specified in the CA A bywhich E PAc an c omm an d aS ta te to re vis e an appr ove d S IP . S ee 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ) (o ut li ni ng th e “ SIP ca ll ” p ro ced ur e); Cle an Air Im pl em en ta ti on Pro

ject v . EPA, 150 F. 3d 1 200, 120 7 ( D . C. Ci r. 199 8) ( ex pla ini ng that r eq uiring S ta te s to c ha nge their SIP s “ can only occur through an ind ependent procedure known as a ‘ SIP cal l’”). A S IPc al l i s a n “ ex te nsi ve r eg ulatory pr oc es s, ” unde r w hic h E PAr eq uir es a St at e to r ev ise it s S IPa nd the pub lic is giv en ac ha nc e to c omm en t. C le an A ir Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 38 of 76 DktEntry: 711937827

Im ple m en ta tio n, 150 F . 3d at 12 07; se e 42 U . S. C. § 75 02( d) ( re vis ion s r eq uir edin nonattain m ent area s in respons e to EP A f indin g und er sec tion 1 10(k)(5)). E PA ha s no t i nvok edthi s pr oc es s f or the S outh C oa st 1 -h our

oz one a tta inmen t dem onstration in the 199 7/19 99 South Coast Oz one SIP, nor m ayPetitioners co m pe l i t. Whe the r the E PAA dmini str at or sho uldc hoos e to r ev ie w aS IPa nd m ak e a fi ndi ng o f “ subs ta nti al ina de qua cy , ” w hic h w oul d m an da te a n E PAc al l f or co rr ec tiv e SI P re vis ion s, is w hol lyw ith in the A dmini str at or ’ s di sc re tio n. S ee 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( k) (5 ) (s pe ci fy ing that E PAm ayiss ue aS IPc al l “ [w ] he ne ve r the Administrator finds th at the applicable [SI P] . . . is subs tantially inadequate . . .” ) (em phasis add ed); cf. Sierr a Club v. Johnson , 541 F. 3d 12 57, 1265 (11t h Cir. 2008 ) (c onstrui ng 42 U. S. C. § 766 1d(b)(2) (“ The A dministrator shall iss ue an obj ec tio n [ to a

T itl e V pe rm

it] . . . if the pe tit ion er

de m onstrate s to the A dmini str at or

that the pe rm

it is n ot i n c om

pli an ce w iththe r eq uir emen ts o f [the Clean A ir A ct] . . . ”), to allow E PAdiscretion to determine what such a c itizen pe tit ion m

ust sho w in or de r to m ak e an a de quate “ de m onstratio n” ); Ci tiz en s Aga in stRu in in g t he Env ’t v. EPA, 53 5 F .3d 67 0, 6 77 (7t h C ir. 2 00 8) (sa m e). Ignoring th e “ SIPcall” proce ss entirely , P etitioners contend that EP A shou ld h av e re qui re d ane w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n be cause P et iti one rs be lie ve the “ assum

ption s underly ing th e 1997/1 999 Plan are no longer valid,” and that “ as Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 39 of 76 DktEntry: 711937828

a re sul t of . . . ne w inf

or m at ion , w e know that the old199 7/1 999 Pl an is not goi ng to work as envisioned.” Pe t. B r. at 36. I n supp ort of these assertions, Pe tition ers poi nt t o “ update d de m ogr ap hic da ta , ne w a ir qua lity da ta , a nd i nf

or m at ion on es tim at ing m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s. ” P et . Br . a t 35 . H ow ev er , P et iti one rs ’ ar gumen ts tha t the 199 7/1 999 So uth Co as t O zo ne S IPis now “ out da te d” a nd

“ ine ff ec tiv e” are not

e qua l t o a n E PAf

ind ing that the S IPis “ subs ta nti al ly inadequate.” ASIPis a com plex, m ulti-faceted set of oblig ations. See 42 U. S. C. § 74 10( a) (2 ) (s ettin g f

orth b as ic S IPe le m en ts f or a ll SI Ps ); id. § 75 02 ( se tti ng fo rth a ddi tio na l r eq uir emen ts f or non atta inmen t are as ); id. § 75 11a( se tti ng f orth ad d i t i o n al p re s cr i b ed el emen t s fo r o zo n e n o n at t ai n m en tar ea s b as ed o n th e a re a’s cl as sif ic at ion ). T he e xis te nc e of ne w , upd at ed , or

dif fe re nt i nf or m at ion doe s no t m ean that the SIPis “ subs tantially inadequate” for one or more of the purposes ide nti fi edund er

CA Ase ct ion 110 (k )( 5) . S uc h ade te rm inatio n c an onl y be m ad e byE PAa ft er

E PAe xe rc ise s it s di sc re tio n to r ev ie w the e xis tin g, appr ove d S IPa s a whole. Petitioners point to nothi ng in th e CA A dire cting EPAto perform a re view of the appr ove d S IPor

to oth er w ise r eq uir e a ne w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n “ in lig ht o f sig nif

ic an t ne w inf

or m at ion , ” Pe t. Br . a t 35 . N or do P et iti one rs e xpl ai n how the A ge nc y c oul d la w fu llydo s o w ith out f ir st e xe rc isi ng i ts d isc re tio n to Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 40 of 76 DktEntry: 711937829

review the approved SIP, as a w hole, and m aking a threshold determination under CAAsection 110 (k)(5) that the S IP is “ subs tantially inadequate.” A bse nt a ct ion byE PAto ini tiate r ev ie w of the appr ove d S IP , w hic h migh t le adto a “ SI P ca ll, ” Ca lif or nia ’ s appr ove d a tta inmen t de m onstratio n r em ai ns va lid . P et iti one rs ’ c la im s se eking E PAto re qui re ane w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n m us t b e d en ie d.

2. Th e A ct ’s t ra ns po rt at ionc on fo rm it y p ro vis ion s d o n ot com pel EPA t o requ ire a ne w attainm ent dem onstration. In the ir brie f, P et iti one rs r ai se f

or the f ir st time a nove l the ory in supp ort of the ir c ont en tio n th at

ane w 1- hour

oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n is r eq uir edf or the South Coast. See Pet. Br. 36–3 9. I n the wake of the California’ s withdraw al of ke y portio ns o f the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y upo n w hic h th e atta inmen t dem onstration in the 200 3 South Coast AQMPrelied, EP A disapproved that discretionary submittal’ s 1-hour ozon e attainment dem onstration (and related MV E Bs ). S ee P E R 0 06. P et iti one rs appe ar to ar gue that E PAsho uldha ve required a new attainm ent dem onstration because: the State chose to sub mit new MV E Bs to av oidalapse in fe de ra l f undi ng f or tr an sporta tio n pr oj ec ts, E PAm ad e an ini tia l de te rm

inatio n in 200 4 th at

tho se MV E Bs w er e “ ad eq ua te , ” an d Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 41 of 76 DktEntry: 711937830

tr an sporta tio n a ge nc ie s su bse que ntl y r el ie d on the MV E Bs to ap pr ove tra ns po rta ti on pl an s an d re la te d h ig hwa y an d t ran si t p ro jects . Pet. Br . 38 –3 9. Fi rs t, P et iti one rs w ai ve d th is arg umen t byf ai lin g to r ai se it

during the pub lic comm ent period on EPA ’ s October 24, 2008 , proposed action, and the Court shou ld decline to hear it. Ha vasupai Tribe v. Robertson, 943 F.2d 32, 34 (9th Cir. 1991 ) (“ [a ] bse nt e xc ep tio na l c ir cu m sta nc es , ” iss ue s no t r ai se d du ri ng the pub lic co mm en t pe ri od “ m aynot f or m aba sis f or r ev er sa l of

a n a ge nc y de ci sio n” ). T he sole comm ents addressing MVE Bs challenged EP A’ s contentio n that tr an sporta tio n c onf

or mityde te rm

inatio ns are no l onge r re qui re d f or the 1- hour oz one standardbe cause E PAha s r ev oke d th e 1- hour oz one standarda nd b ec au se E PAha s f

ound8- hour

oz one MV E Bs f

or the S outh C oa st t o be “ ad eq ua te ” fo r tra ns po rta ti on co nf

or mit y pu rp os es . PER 09 6– 09 7. How ever, even we re this argument properly before the C ourt, Pe tition ers h av e f ai l ed t o i d en t i fy an y p ro v i s i o n i n th e A ct ’s co n fo rmit y p ro v i s i o n s o r E PA ’s re gul at ion s th at

c om pe ls E PAto re qui re the S ta te to subm it a ne w a tta inmen t de m onstratio n w he re MV E Bs a sso ci at edw ithaS IPw er e fo und “ ad eq ua te ” an d use d f or ape ri od t ime, but

ult im at el y dis ap pr ove d. A t be st ( tho ugh the y do n ot cite the CA A’ s “ SIPcall” provision), Pe tition ers’ argument appears to be that E PA ’ s ul tim at e dis ap pr ova l of the se bud ge ts a ft er

ape ri od o f re lia nc e by Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 42 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378In the pream ble to a 2004 final rule on transportation conformity , E PAexplained / 9 that conformity determination s m ade during a period in which the bud get was determined to be adequate would rem ain valid even if the SIP and associated budg et w ere subs equently disapprov ed. RE R 191-192 . EP A f urther explained that the “ ite rativ e na tur e” of the c onf or mitypr oc es s ( i. e. , r ec urri ng c onf or mity de m onstratio ns) w ill e nsur e that tra nspo rt at ion pla nni ng i s c onsi ste nt w iththe SIP ’ s goals for attaining and m aintaining the NA AQ S. T his is b ecause these new determination s would need to be m ade consistent with any new budg ets (w hich w oul d a cc ount

f or pa st p la nni ng a ct ivi tie s) , or w iththe int erim

e miss ion s te st es tabli she d in E PA ’ s r eg ulatio ns w he re no b udge ts are a va ilable ( as ar es ult of subs equent disap proval). I d. at 191. Thus, it w ould be incorrec t to assum e that u s e o f ab u d g e tth a ti s u l t i mat e l y d i s ap p r o v e d n e c e s s ar i l y re n d e r s th e c u rr e n t l yapproved SIP “ subs tantially inadequate” within the m eaning of 42 U.S .C. § 7 41 0( k) (5 ). 31 tr an sporta tio n a ge nc ie s, r en de rs the appr ove d S IP“ ina de quate ” w ith in the m ean in g o f se ct io n 1 10 (k )(5 ), an d t hu s EPA i s n ow o bl ig at ed to “ cal l” th e SIP. How ever, as explained above, only when E PAexerc ises its dis cretion to review the w hol e SI P an d f

ind s it “ subs ta nti al lyina de quate ” doe s th e obl igatio n to “ ca ll” the S IPtrigg er . Whil e the use f or ape ri od o f time of

bud ge ts tha t w er e ult im at el y disapprov ed might b e a r elevant factor in any such review, it is only one factor. / 9 As explained above, discretion lies with E PAto und ertake such re view, and EP A has not cho sen to do s o. S ince E PAhas not m ade a f indin g that the approved SIP is “ subs tantially inadequate” within the m eaning of CAAsection 110 (k)(5), there is no ba si s t o re qu ire th e St at e to su bmita ne w att ai nm en t d em on st rat io n S IP. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 43 of 76 DktEntry: 711937832

The A ct’ s transportation conformity provisio ns aim to ensure that federa l fu ndi ng a nd appr ova l go onl y to tho se tr an sporta tio n pr oj ec ts tha t are c onsi ste nt w iththe statut e’ s go al s. S ee 42 U . S. C. § 75 06( c) (1 ), ( 2) . T ha t C al if or nia c hose to subm it ne w MV E Bs be cause it de sir ed“ to a voi d atr an sporta tio n c onf or mitylapse and associated federal f

undi ng los ses,” PE R 113, is irre levant to whether E PAhas an oblig ation un der the CA A to re quire a new attainm ent dem onstration . Nor does it fo llo w that be cause E PAm ad e a pr el iminaryde te rm inatio n in 200 4 th at

the MV E Bs in the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MPw er e “ ad eq ua te ” (i . e. , “ pr ovi d[ ed ] f or pr ogr es s a nd atta inmen t of the 1- hour

oz one . . . N A A Q S, ” PE R 3 10) , a nd b ec au se tr an sporta tio n a ge nc ie s su bse que ntl y r el ie d on the se MV E Bs in ap pr ovi ng v ariou s hig hw aya nd tra nspo rt at ion pr oj ec ts, that E PAw as obl ige d, upo n ul tim at el y dis ap pr ovi ng the MV E Bs , to re qui re Ca lif or nia to subm it a ne w 1- hour

oz one at ta in m en t d em on st rat io n. N one of the se thi ngs – no t C al if

or nia ’ s c hoi ce to subm

it the se MV E Bs , not EP A’ s initial “ adequacy ” determ ination , a nd no t subs equent use of these MVE Bs bytr an sporta tio n a ge nc ie s – c ha nge d th e St at e’ s di sc re tio nary200 3 1- hour oz one atta inmen t de m onstratio n in to a “ re qui re d” sub mitt al . T he CA A “ re qui re m en t” is to provid e a 1-hour ozone attainment plan, 42 U. S. C. § 751 1a(c)( 2)(A ), and EP A ha d a lr ea dyf

oundthat the a tta inmen t de m onst ratio n in the 199 4 S outh C oa st Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 44 of 76 DktEntry: 711937833

A Q MP( as late r re vis edthr oughappr ova l of the 199 7/1 999 So uth Co as t O zo ne SIP) ful ly sati sf

ie d t ha t re qu ire m en t. B. EP A’ s Disapproval of the 2003 Plan’ s 1-Hour Oz one A ttainm ent De m onstration D id N ot Trigger a D uty for EP A t o Prom ulgate a FIPor to Im pose Sanctions Petitioners argue that E PAm ust promulgate a FIPbecause it disapproved the 2003 South Coast AQ MP’ s 1-hour ozon e attainment dem onstration . Pet. Br. at 33. T his is not

c orre ct . T he 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MP ’ s 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n w as adis cr et ion ary r ev isi on t o th e pr ev iou sly -appr ove d, sti ll- inef fe ct a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in Ca lif or nia ’ s S IP . B ec au se Ca lif or nia a lr ea dy had a full-approved 1-hour ozon e attainment dem onstration SIPas required under the A ct , E PA ’ s di sappr ova l of the 200 3 P la n’ s a tta inmen t de m onstratio n di d no t tri gg er an ob li ga ti on to pro m ul ga te an att ai nm en t d em on st rat io n F IP u nd er CAA section 110 (c)( 1)(B) , 42 U .S .C. § 7410 (c)( 1)(B) , or to im pose sanction s under CA A se ct ion 179 (a ), 42 U . S. C. § 75 09( a) . E PAha s c onsi ste ntl y int er pr et edthe A ct not to re qui re E PAto pr om

ulg at e a FI P or

to im pose sa nc tio ns u pon dis ap pr ovi ng a

dis cr et ion ary S IPr ev isi on s uc h a s th e 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t de m on st rat io n i n t he 20 03 So ut h C oa stAQMP. E PA ’ s st atuto ryobl igatio n to pr om ulg at e FI Ps is onl y trigg er edw he n: 1 ) E PA“ fi nds that a

S ta te ha s f

ai le d to m ak e a re qui re d su bmiss ion . . . , ” em pha sis Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 45 of 76 DktEntry: 711937834

ad de d, or 2) E PA“ dis ap pr ove s aS ta te im ple m en ta tio n pl an sub miss ion in w hol e or in part . ” 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( c) (1 )( A )– (B ). S im ilarl y , m an da tory sa nc tio ns appl y only with re spect to “ any im plem entation pl an or plan revision required und er [Par t D o f Tit le I of

th e Act ]. ” 42 U.S.C. § 7 50 9( a) (e m ph as is ad de d) . FI P an d sa nc tio ns o bli ga tio ns are thu s trigg er edonl y w he n aS ta te f ai ls t o m ee t a statut ory S IPr eq uir emen t, a nd h er e Ca lif or nia ha d met the appl ic ab le re qui re m en ts –

E PA ’ s di sappr ova l of

Ca lif or nia ’ s di sc re tio naryS IPr ev isi ons did not a lte r that st atus. A s e xpl ai ne d above , E PAf ull y appr ove d th e So uth Co as t’ s 1- hour oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n on Ja nuary8, 199 7, a nd s ubse que ntl y f ull y approved dis cretionaryrevisions to this plan o n April 10, 2000. Ca lifornia wa s unde r no f

urthe r statut ory or

r eg ulatory obl igatio n to sub mit re vis ion s to thi s f ull y approved plan. Thus, the new attainm ent dem onstration at issue in this case w as subm itt eda t C al if

or nia ’ s di sc re tio n, a nd w as not “ re qui re d” w ith in the mea nin g of 42 U.S.C. §§ 74 10 (c)( 1) (A) (FIP ) or75 09 (a) (s an ct io ns ). Petitioners also invo ke 42 U. S. C. § 741 0(c)( 1)(B) , w hich specifies that EPA m ust pr om ulg at e a FI P w ith in 2 y ears w he n it “ dis ap pr ove s a[ SI P] sub miss ion in whole or in part. ” Pe t. B r. at 34. A lthou gh thi s provisi on do es not on it s face ref er only to “ required” SI P submissio ns, E PAviews this limitation as im plicit in th at the r eq uir edsub miss ion r ef er re d to in 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( c) (1 )( A ) in c onne ct ion Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 46 of 76 DktEntry: 711937835

w ithS ta te f

ai lur es to subm

it is the sa m e ty pe of

sub miss ion r ef

er re d to in 42 U . S. C. § 74 10( c) (1 )( B) in co nne ct ion w ithdis ap pr ova ls. R ea d “ in . . . c ont ex t a nd w ithavie w to [i ts] pla ce in the ove ra ll statut ory sc he m e, ” N at ’ l A ss’ n of H omeb uil de rs v. D ef

en de rs of W ild lif e, 551 U . S. 644 , 666 ( 2007 ), the pr ovi sio n re qui re s E PAto pr om

ulg at e a FI P w ith in t w o y ears onl y a ft er dis ap pr ovi ng a re qui re d S IPr ev isi on. U sin g tr ad iti ona l t ool s of statut ory c onstru ct ion , to re adthe pr ovi sio n to appl y w he re E PAdis ap pr ove s adis cr et ion ary S IPr ev isi on w oul d y ield absurd results, because it w ould require the a gency to promulgate a FIP w he re the S ta te ’ s f

ull y appr ove d S IPr em ai ns i n e ff ec t. S ee Be ch te l C onst . , I nc . v. U nit edBh d. of

Carp en te rs & Joi ne rs of

A m . , 812 F . 2d 1 220, 122 5 ( 9th Ci r. 198 7) (“ Le gislativ e enactments sho uld never be construed as establish ing statu tory s ch emes th atar e i l l o g i ca l , u n ju s t , o r c ap ri ci o u s ”) . Th i s wo u l d u p s etth e A ct ’s sc he m e of

c oope rativ e fe de ra lis m , w hic h a cc or ds S tate s prim ary r es pons ibi lity in co ntr oll ing a ir

pol lut ion w ith in the ir

bor de rs , 42 U . S. C. § 74 01( a) (3 ). T he pr ov is io n p la in ly app li es on ly to EPA d is ap pr ov al s o f req ui red SIP s ub mit ta ls . Even if it wer e am

bigu ous, EP A’ s interpretation of this p rovisio n as applicable only to required submittals is reasonable and sho uld be accorded de fe re nc e unde r Ch ev ro n. A lso e nti tle d to de fe re nc e (a ssu ming f or the sake of argum ent that the provis ions are not unam bigu ous on the m atter, as described Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 47 of 76 DktEntry: 711937836

above) is EP A’ s interpretation of CAAsections 11 0(c)( 1)(A ) and 179(a) as inappl ic ab le w he re E PAdis ap pr ove s aS IPr ev isi on tha t w as not “ re qui re d” w ith in the mea nin g of

tho se pr ovi sio ns. T o de te rm ine w he the r E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n is pe rm iss ibl e, the Co urt sh oul d “ loo k to the pla in a nd s en sib le mea nin g of the st at ut e, th e st at ut or y pro vi si on in th e co nt ex t o f th e who le st at ut e an d c as e la w, an d to the le gis la tiv e purpose a nd i nte nt. ” Cu ev as -G as par v. G onz al es , 430 F . 3d 10 13 , 10 22 (9t h C ir. 2 00 5) . A s no te d above , E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n is c onsi ste nt w iththe pur pose s be hin d the FIP and sanction s provisi ons. Under Title I of the A ct, States have prim ary responsib ility for im

plem enting th e N AA QS and EP A m aystep in onl y once it has determined that a State has failed to fulfill its respon sibili ties. 42 U .S .C. § 740 1(a)( 3). The m andatory sanctions p rovisio n was c reate d to provi de an in cen ti ve forSta te s t o t ak e p rimaryres po ns ib il it y forim pl em en ti ng th e NAAQS w ith in the ir

bou ndari es . S ee N atur al Re s. D ef . Co unc il, I nc . v. Br ow ne r, 57 F . 3d 1122 , 112 3–24 ( D . C. Ci r. 199 5) ( “ Co ngr es s e stabli she d anum be r of inc en tiv es f

or st at es to co m

pl y wit h S IP s ub mis si on an d i m pl em en ta ti on de ad li ne s . . . includ[ing ] m andatory sanctions, discretionary sanctions, and im posit ion of a [FI P] .” ). Similarly , the F IP provision was cre ated to ensure that wher e the State s fail to take such responsib ility , E PAwill step into the State’ s shoes and ensure that Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 48 of 76 DktEntry: 711937837

the statutory oblig ation is m et. Id. Thus, once a State has m et its statuto ry obl igatio n, a s ha s C al if

or nia w ithr es pe ct

to the 1- hour

oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n f

or the S outh C oa st, the re is no b as is f or the im posi tio n of

sa nc tio ns o r t h e p ro m

u l g at i o n o f aFI P. EPA ’s i n t erp re t at i o n g i v es fu l l ef fe ctt o th e A ct ’s ap pr oa chof

ve sti ng S ta te s w iththe “ pr im ary r es pons ibi lity ” fo r atta ini ng the NAAQS, 42 U.S.C. § 7 40 7( a). Fu rthe rmor e, E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n is r ea sonable be cause it m ak es no s en se to interpret the FIPand sanctions provisio ns to be trigg ered in a situation, such as that i n th e So uth Co as t, w he re E PAdis ap pr ove s di sc re tio naryr ev isi ons to the St at e’ s f ull y -appr ove d S IP . S ta te s are f re e to r eq ue st modi fi catio ns t o th ei r ap pr ove d S IP s, a nd s uc h m odi fi catio ns m aybe m or e, le ss, or e qua llya s stri nge nt as the r eq uir emen ts i n th e ap pr ove d pl an . F or e xa m ple , aS ta te m ayc hoos e to re vis e a te ch nol ogy -b as edr eq uir emen t f or asou rc e cate gory to m ak e it le ss stringent th an a re quirem ent that was pre viou sly approved und er 42 U .S .C. § 75 11a (b )( 2) , w hic h r eq uir es “ re as onablya va ilable c ontro l t ec hnol ogy ” fo r ce rt ai n so ur ce s. I f E PAw er e to d isappr ove suc h su bmiss ion , it w oul d m ak e no se nse to int er

pr et the A ct to re qui re E PAto pr om

ulg at e a FI P in p la ce of

the d i s ap p r o v e d s u b mi s s i o n wh e n th e S I P a l r e a d y c o n t a i n s a n ap p r o v e d t e c h n o l o g yba se d r eq uir emen t f

or that so ur ce c at eg ory . T he pur pose of aF IPis to e stabli sh a Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 49 of 76 DktEntry: 711937838

fe de ra l pl an w he n aS ta te ha s no t met it s ob lig at ion to de ve lop a n appr ovable pla n; its pur pose is not

to supe rc ed e ex ist ing appr ove d S ta te pla ns. S ee Mc Carthyv. Thom as, 27 F. 3d 13 63, 1365 (9th Cir. 1994 ) (“ A F IP is a set of enforce able feder al re gul at ion s th at

stand i n th e pla ce of

de fi ci en t po rtion s of

aS IP . ”) ( em

pha sis ad de d) . E PAha s c onsi ste ntl ym ai nta ine d, a s am atte r of na tio na l po lic y , that w he n it disapprov es discretionarySIPrevisions, no sanction s or FIPrequirements are trigg er ed . S ee , e . g. , 58 F ed . Re g. 50, 262, 50, 265 (S ep t. 27, 199 3) ( A laba m a) ; 65 Fe d. Re g. 10, 713, 10, 716 (F eb . 29, 200 0) ( Ca lif or nia ); 73 F ed . Re g. 20, 536, 20,547 (Apr. 16, 2008) (Ne vada). E PA ’ s long standin g, consistently -applied int er pr et at ion of

the F IPa nd s an ct ion s pr ovi sio ns a s in ap pli cable to dis ap pr ova ls of discretionarySIPrevisions is rea sonable, and entitled to d efer ence under Ch ev ro n. S ee G ood Sa m arita n H osp. v. S ha la la , 508 U . S. 402 , 417 ( 1993 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at

“ the c onsi ste nc y of

a n a ge nc y ’ s po sit ion is a fa ct or in as se ssi ng the w ei ght

that po sit ion is due ”) ; N atur al Re s. D ef . Co unc il v. E PA , 526 F . 3d 5 91, 6 0 2 (9 th Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( s ame) . Th er ef o re , t h e C o u rts h o u l d u p h o l d EP A’s de te rm inatio n th at

it s di sappr ova l of

the vol unt ary 1- hour

oz one a tta inmen t de m onstratio n in the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MPdidnot trigg er F IPor sa nc tio ns cl oc ks . Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 50 of 76 DktEntry: 711937839

II. THIS C OUR T LA CKS JUR ISDIC TION TO HEA R P ETITION ERS ’ “PES TICID E ELE MEN T” CL AIM S Pe tit ion er s la ck

standi ng t o c ha lle nge E PA ’ s a ct ion appr ovi ng P E ST -1 , the 2003 S ta te S tr at eg y ’ s c ommitmen t t o c ont inu e to i m ple m en t the e xis tin g strate gy to r ed uc e V O C e miss ion s f ro m a gr ic ultur al a nd s truc tur al pe sti ci de s in the S outh Co as t a nd o the r ar ea s. E PAf ir st appr ove d th is s tr at eg y , theso- ca lle d “ Pe sti ci de Elem en t,” i n 1 99 7. RER 1 17 . Whe th er EPA h ad ap pr ov ed or d is ap pr ov ed PEST1, it w oul d ha ve r em ai ne d in e ff ec t. P et iti one rs ’ a lle ge d in j ur ie s st em

ming f ro m the P es tic ide E le m en t w er e not c au se d byE PA ’ s 20 09 rule m aking , a nd c an not be red res se d b y th e rel ie f th ey see k. A . P etit ion er s L ac k

S ta nd in g t o C ha lle ng e EPA ’s 200 9 A pp ro val of PE ST-1, the 2003 State Str ategy’s Com m itm ent to Maint ain the Statu s Quo With R espect to th e Existing P esticide Elem ent

“ A rtic le I IIof

the Co nst itu tio n c onf

ine s th e fe de ra l c ourts t o a dj udi catin g actual ‘ cases’ and ‘ controversies.’ ” A llen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (198 4); W arth v. S eldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (197 5). “ Federa l courts are pre sum ed to lack j ur isd ic tio n, unl es s th e co ntr ary appe ar s a ff irm at ive lyf

ro m the r ec or d. ” Ca se y v. L ew is, 4 F . 3d 1 516, 151 9 ( 9th Ci r. 199 3) ( ci ta tio n a nd i nte rn al quo ta tio n m arks omitted). A s the parties invok ing federal j urisdictio n, Pe tition ers bear the burden of dem onstrating that they possess standing to seek the requested relief . See Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 51 of 76 DktEntry: 711937840

Su mm er s v . Ea rt h Is l an d In s t ., 1 2 9 S. Ct . 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ); No rt h we s tEn v t ’l Defen se Ctr . v. BPA, 1 17 F.3d 15 20 , 15 28 (9t h C ir. 1 99 7) . To pursue their claim s, P etitioners must dem onstrate the three elements that constitu te the “ irreducible constitut ional minimum ” of A rticle II I standing. Luj an v. D efenders of W ildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (199 2). In L uja n, the Supreme Court re ite rate d th at

apla int if f m ust ha ve suf fe re d a n “ inj ury in fa ct ” that i s a ctua l, imminent and no t conje ctural or hy poth etical, that wa s caused by the conduct com plained of, and that is likely to be redressed bya fa vorable decision. Id. at 560– 61. P et iti one rs m

ust de m onstrate standi ng s ep ar at el y f or e ac h c la im , a nd f

or ea chf or m of r el ie f soug ht. D ai mle rC hry sle r Co rp . v. Cu no, 547 U . S. 332 , 352 (2006). 1. P etit ion er s’ all eg ed in ju ri es were n otc au se d by EPA ’s 200 9 approval of PE ST-1, the 2003 State Str ategy’s com m itm ent to m aintain thestatus qu o w ith re spect to th e existing Pe sticide E lem ent. To satisfythe trace ability requirement of constitu tional stand ing, Petitioners m ust sh ow there is a “ causal connection between the inj ury and the conduct co m pla ine d of

– the inj ury ha s to be ‘ fa ir ly. . . tr ac e[ ab le ] to the c ha lle nge d a ct ion of the de fe nda nt. ’ ” L uj an , 504 U . S. a t 56 0 ( al te ratio n a nd e lli pse s in origi na l) Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 52 of 76 DktEntry: 711937841

(quotin g Sim on v. Ea stern Ky . W elfar e Rights Org. , 426 U. S. 26, 41–42 (1976)). Pe tit ion er s ha ve f

ai le d to mee t this bur de n. As r elevant to their Pesticide E lement claim s, P etitioners allege that they and their m em

bers are injure d by “ excess emissio ns allowed from [E PA ’ s] failure to c ontro l pe sti ci de s, e miss ion s th at w oul d no t othe rw ise oc cu r, ” Pe t. Br . a t 29 , an d b y “ weak en ed en fo rcem en t o pp or tu ni ti es forfai lu res to co m pl y wit h t he EPAap pr ove d S IPmea sur es , ” id. a t 30 . P et iti one rs a lso a sse rt that the y are inj ur edby

“ E PA ’ s appr ova l of

une nf or ce ab le c ommitmen ts i n th e St at e Strate gy , w hic h c oul d preclude Petitioners fr om seeking redress if these measures ar e not im plem ented.” Id . A s e xpl ai ne d be low , the re is sim plyno c au sa l l ink

be tw ee n a nyof

the se al le ge d in j ur ie s a nd E PA ’ s 20 09 a ct ion m ai nta ini ng the status quo w ithr es pe ct to the existing Pesticide E lement, f or that element would have rem ained in effec t reg ard le ss of wh et he r EPA ap pr ov ed or d is ap pr ov ed PEST-1 . The limited language in th e 2003 State Strate gy concerning PES T- 1 ind ic at es that i t i s si m

plyac ont inu at ion of

the P es tic ide E le m en t a s appr ove d in 1997 : “ A s de sc ri be d in the 199 4 S IPa nd U . S. E PA ’ s no tic e ap pr ovi ng tha t pl an , [th e Cal ifo rn iaDepa rtment o f Pes ti ci de Reg ul at io n] co mmit te d t o re du ce VOC emissio ns from

pesticides throu gh vo luntary measures, with a r egulatory ba ck sto p. ” P E R 2 56. A s E PAstate d in it s pr opos edrule m aking a nd i n r es pons e Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 53 of 76 DktEntry: 711937842

to c omm en ts, “ W e int er

pr et our appr ova l of

thi s mea sur e as m ai nta ini ng the status quo w ithr es pe ct

to the e xis tin g pe sti ci de str at eg y ( i. e. , the S IPw ill c ont inu e to refl ectth e st rat eg y as a pp ro ve d b y EPA in 19 97 ).” PER 0 06 . CA RB , the de sig ne e fo r SI P m atte rs in Ca lif or nia , didnot

sub mit co mm en ts in r es pons e to E PA ’ s pr opos edrule on the 200 3 S ta te S tr at eg y , a nd thus didnot ob ject t o EPA’s i nt erp ret at io n t ha t ap pr ov al of P EST-1 m ai nt ai ne d t he st at us qu o. L ike w ise , ne ith er

during pub lic c omm en ts n or in the ir ope nin g brie f did Pe tit ion er s c ha lle nge thi s in te rp re ta tio n. N or didthe y c ha lle nge E PA ’ s a sse rtion that either approval or disapproval would h ave re sulted in the same re gulatory outcom e, i.e ., continu ation of the existin g Pesticide E lement as approved by EP A in 19 97 . Pe tit ion er s’ sol e cl ai m

appe ar s to be that the de sc ri pti on o f the P es tic ide Elem en t i n P EST-1 i s fa ul ty giv en th e o ut co m e o f th is Co ur t’s d eci si on in El Comité para e l Bienestar de E arlim art v. W armerdam , 539 F. 3d 10 62 (9th Cir. 2008 ), a nd tha t the P es tic ide E le m en t, a s appr ove d in to the S IPin 1997 , is une nf or ce ab le . T he y the re fo re a sse rt that E PA ’ s appr ova l of

P E ST -1 vio la te s th e Ac t and that the Court sho uld “ vacate E PA ’ s approval of the 200 3 State Str ategy .” Pe t. Br . 47. H ow ev er , E PA ’ s r ec en t appr ova l of P E ST -1 didnot

m ak e the Pe sti ci de E le m en t e ith er

m or e, or le ss, e nf or ce ab le tha n it

a lr ea dyw as . T he Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 54 of 76 DktEntry: 711937843

Pesticide E lement would have continu ed in effe ct regar dless of what ac tion EPA took . Thus, e ven if Petitioners’ alleged harm is fairlytrace able to EP A’ s approval of the P es tic ide E le m en t i n 19 97, it is not f ai rl y tr ac eable to E PA ’ s appr ova l of PEST-1 in 20 09 . In sup port of

the ir a sse rtion that the ir

inj ur ie s are tr ac eable to E PA ’ s a ct ion s w ithr es pe ct

to PE ST -1 , P et iti one rs a tte m pt t o c om pare thi s c as e w ithBi odi ve rs ity Le gal Found. v. Ba dgley , 309 F. 3d 11 66 (9th Cir. 2002). P et. Br. 29. In that ca se, an en v i ro n m en t al o rg an i za t i o n wa s i n ju re d b y th e U .S . F i s h & Wi l d l i fe Se rv i ce ’s failure to com

ply with ce rtain deadlines und er the E ndangered Species A ct, which fai lu re “ res ul t[e d] in co nt in ue d t hr eat s t o [t hr eat en ed sp eci es ’] ex is te nc e.” Ba dgl ey , 309 F . 3d at 11 72. U nli ke the situa tio n in Ba dgl ey , w he re a ff irm at ive action by the U. S. Fish & W ildlife Service would have resulted in the species be ing li ste d a s pl ai nti ff

s de sir ed , he re the e xis tin g P es tic ide E le m en t w oul d ha ve re m ai ne d in e ff

ec t w he the r E PAappr ove d or dis ap pr ove d P E ST -1 . P et iti one rs ’ al le ge d i nju rie s ar e th us no t fa irl y tra ceab le to EPA’ s re cen t ac ti on .

2. V ac at uran d re m an d of EPA ’s ap pr oval of

P ES T- 1 woul d no t re dr es s P etit ion er s’ all eg ed in ju ri es . Petitioners also cannot satisfy the requirement that a favorable j udicial de ci si on wou ld “ li ke ly” redr es s t he ir a ll eg ed in jury. See Lu

jan, 5 04 U.S. at 5 61 . Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 55 of 76 DktEntry: 711937844

The r edressability analy sis requires a court to examine whether it “ has the power to righ t or

pr ev en t the c la imedinj ury . ” G onz al es v. G or suc h, 688 F . 2d 1 263, 126 7 (9 th C ir . 198 2) . E ve n if

thi s C ourt w er e to g ra nt the r el ie f Pe tit ion er s’ se ek , va catur a nd r em an d of

E PA ’ s appr ova l of

P E ST -1 ( se e Pe t. Br . a t 3, 21, 47, a nd 60) , thi s w oul d no t r ed re ss the ir a lle ge d in

j ur ie s be cause the e xis tin g P es tic ide Element as approved in 19 97 would rem ain in effec t as a SI P-approved co mmitmen t. A nyinj ur ie s st em ming f ro m that pr ev iou sly -appr ove d e le m en t w oul d c ont inu e to o cc ur . S ee Railw ayL ab or E xe cu tiv es A ss’ n v. D ole , 760 F . 2d 1021 , 102 3 ( 9th Ci r. 198 5) ( hol din g th at pla int if f’ s in j ury w as not

r ed re ssable be cause , e ve n if

the c ourt gr an te d th e re que ste d in j unc tiv e re lie f, the inj ury w oul d co nt in ue to oc cu r). E ve n a ssu ming , arg ue ndo, that “ [r ] ed uc tio n in oz one le ve ls w ill a lle viate Petitioners’ harm ,” Pet. Br. at 31, this is not th e re lief that w ould result if the Court vacates E PA ’ s approval of PES T- 1. V acatur of this approv al w ould not reduce ac tua l po llu tio n le ve ls, r ed uc e the r isk of pol lut ion le ve ls, or

ha ve a nyoth er

r ea lw or ld c onse que nc es be cause the sub sta nc e of the S IPw oul d be una ff

ec te d by vacatur. E ven if E PAdisapprov ed PE ST -1 on rem and, as P etitioners argue EP A shou ld h av e done a s a n in iti al m atte r, P et . Br . a t 40 , the ide nti ca l P es tic ide Elem en t as ap pr ov ed in 19 97 wou ld rem ai n i n e ffec t. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 56 of 76 DktEntry: 711937845

A s e xpl ai ne d above , P et iti one rs do n ot c ha lle nge E PA ’ s st at emen t tha t i ts ap pr ova l of

P E ST -1 in 2009 sim

plym ai nta ins the status quo w ithr es pe ct to the ex ist ing P es tic ide E le m en t, nor do the y dis put e that e ith er a n appr ova l or disapprov al w ould have left the P esticide Element intact. I nstead, theyclaim that

“ E PAvio la te d th e A ct

byappr ovi ng a n un en fo rc eable c ommitt al mea sur e, ” Pe t. Br . a t4 6 , a n d th at“ EP A s h o u l d h av e d i s ap p ro v ed th e P es t i ci d e E l emen t ’s co mmitmen t t o a dopt

r eg ulatio ns, ” id. a t 40 . W er e the Co urt t o gr an t the ir r eq ue st f o r v a c a tu r a n dr e ma n d , o n r e ma n d th e a g e n c y w o u l d b e p r e s e n t e d w i th th e s a me dilemm a as in the original rulem aking – a false choice betw een identical out co m es . Jus t a s be fo re , a ny“ de fi ci en ci es in the e nf or ce ab ili tyof

the P es tic ide E le m en t, w ha te ve r the y migh t be , [ w oul d be ] the sa m e, ” w he the r E PAappr ove s or dis ap pr ove s th e 2003 sub miss ion . P E R 0 06. B ec au se af av or ab le ruli ng b y thi s Co urt w oul d no t r ed re ss the ir a lle ge d in

j ur ie s, P et iti one rs la ck

standi ng t o ch al le nge E PA ’ s appr ova l of P E ST -1 . T his c la im

sho uldbe dis miss ed . B. EP A’ s App roval of the 2003 State S trategy’s C om m itm ent to Maintain the S tatus Qu o With R espect to th e Existing A pproved “P es ti ci de El em en t” D id N otEn ta il a S ub st an ti ve R ev ie w of Th at Elem ent Ca lif or nia ha d origi na llyint en de d th e 2003 S ta te S tr at eg y to “ en tir el y replace the existing State c ontrol st rategyfor the S outh Coast” w ith a new Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 57 of 76 DktEntry: 711937846

str at eg y . P E R 0 05. F or

the sake of

c om ple te ne ss, a nd t o a llo w f

or the w hol es al e re pla ce m en t of

the e xis tin g strate gyf

or the S outh C oa st w iththe ne w 200 3 S ta te Strate gy , Ca lif

or nia inc lud edapr opos al ( “ PE ST -1 ”) to co nti nue it s e xis tin g co mmitmen t t o r ed uc e V O C e miss ion s f ro m pe sti ci de use ( i. e. , to co nti nue the ex is ti ng Pes ti ci de Elem en t). Ca lif or nia w ith dr ew se ve ra l ke y c om pone nts of

thi s ne w str at eg y in 2008 , before E PAacted on the submissio n. S ee P ER010– 011. This w ithdrawal fo re cl ose d a nypos sib ili tyf or the w hol es al e re pla ce m en t of the e xis tin g st at e str at eg y f or the S outh C oa st, so t ec hni ca llythe re w as no l onge r an y ne edf or the S t a t e t o i n c l u d e th e P e s t i c i d e El e men ta s p arto f th e p a c k a g e , a s th e p r e v i o u s l yap pr ove d S IPa lr ea dyc ont ai ne d it . N one the le ss, Ca lif or nia didnot w ith dr aw it s commitm ent to contin ue the existing 1997 -approved Pesticide E lement. E PAwa s th us ob li ge d e it he r to ap pr ov e o r di sa pp ro ve it . Be cause P E ST -1 w as not asub sta nti ve r ev isi on t o th e ap pr ove d S IPbut m er el y ar ec ogni tio n of

the state ’ s e xis tin g ob lig at ion , a nd b ec au se no a ct ion it co uldha ve take n r eg ar din g P E ST -1 c oul d ha ve a lte re d th e ex ist ing P es tic ide E le m en t, E PAw as not

r eq uir edund er

the CA A to co nduc t a

sub sta nti ve r ev ie w of the e xis tin g P es tic ide E le m en t. T he sub mitt al of P E ST -1 w as not

it se lf f ed er al ly re qui re d, nor

w as it inc lud edin a pla n th at

w as f ed er al lyr eq uir ed , a nd P E ST -1 did Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 58 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Sh o u l d th e C o u rtfi n d th atPe t i t i o n er s h av e s t an d i n g t o ch al l en g e E PA ’s / 10 ap pr ova l of

P E ST -1 , a nd a lso f

indthat E PAw as r eq uir edund er the CA A to co nduc t a sub sta nti ve r ev ie w of

the e xis tin g P es tic ide E le m en t, E PAr es pe ct fu lly req ue st s t ha t t he Co ur t re m an d t hi s i ss ue to EPA forth atrev ie w. 47 nothin g to c ha nge the e xis tin g S IP . T hus, E PAha d tw o op tio ns, to ap pr ove or dis ap pr ove , ne ith er

of w hic h c oul d ha ve r es ci nde d th e unde rl y ing str at eg y about w hic h P et iti one rs c om

pla in. E PAappr ove d th e subm iss ion . A s it

e xpl ai ne d in the fi na l rule , E PAdidnot

r eg ar d it s a ct ion appr ovi ng the sub miss ion a s asub sta nti ve ruling on the merits of the Pe sticide Element. R ather, it interpreted its approval as

“ m ai nt ai ni ng th e st at us qu o wi th res pe ctto th e ex is ti ng pe st ic id e st rat eg y .” PER 006. T his int er

pr et at ion , unc ha lle nge d byP et iti one rs , mer el y r ec ogni ze s th at the existing approved Pesticide Ele m ent would rem ain in effec t whether or not EPA ap pr ove d th e St at e’ s c ommitmen t i n P E ST -1 to co nti nue to im ple m en t i t. /

10 III. EP A R EAS ONA BLY CO NC LUD ED THA T SC AQM D’ S SU PP LEM ENT AL DEM ONS TRA TION SA TISF IES THE REQUI REMENT O F CAA SECTIO N 18 2( d)(1 )(A) TO OFFSET ANY GRO WTH IN EMIS SION S F ROM GR OWTH IN VE HICLE MILES TRA VEL ED OR NU MBE RS OF VE HICLE TR IPS A s a n “ ex tr eme” oz one non atta inmen t are a, the S outh C oa st A ir Ba sin is subj ec t t o stri nge nt c ontro l mea sur e re qui re m en ts. A m ong the se is CA A se ct ion 182( d) (1 )( A ), w hic h st at es in re le va nt p art: W ith in 2 y ears a ft er

N ove m be r 15, 199 0, the S ta te sha ll subm it a re vis ion that i de nti fi es a nd a dopt s sp ec if ic e nf or ce ab le tr an sporta tio n c ontro l Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 59 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378The phrase “ transportation control strategies” ref ers genera lly to m easures that / 11 ar e dir ec te d to w ar d r ed uc ing e miss ion s of a ir pol lut an ts f

ro m tr an sporta tio n sources. T he phrase “ transportation control m easures” r efer s to m easures that re duc e em

iss ion s or c onc en tr at ion s of

a ir pol lut an ts f

ro m tr an sporta tio n so ur ce s by re duc ing ve hic le use or

c ha ngi ng tra ff

ic f low or c onge sti on c ondi tio ns. S ee 42 U. S. C. § 740 8(f)( 1)(A ) (listing exam ples of TC Ms). 48 str at eg ie s a nd tra nspo rt at ion c ontro l mea sur es to of fs et a nygr ow th i n em iss ion s f ro m gr ow th i n ve hic le mile s tr av el edor num be rs of ve hic le trips i n s u c h ar e aa n d t o a t t a i n r e d u c t i o n i n mo t o r v e h i c l e e mi s s i o n s a s n e c e s s ar y, in c om bin at ion w ithoth er

e miss ion r ed uc tio n r eq uir emen ts o f thi s su bpart , to c om plyw iththe r eq uir emen ts o f subs ec tio n ( b) (2 )( B) a nd ( c) (2 )( B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissio ns reduction requirem ents). 42 U . S. C. § 75 11a (d )( 1) (A ). T ra nspo rt at ion c ontro l strate gie s a nd tra nspo rt at ion co ntr ol mea sur es are he re ina ft er r ef er re d to c oll ec tiv el y a s “ T CM s, ” an d ve hic le miles traveled and num

bers of vehicle trips are ref erre d to collectively as

“ VMT.” /

11 In its final rule, EP A approved SCAQ MD’ s dem onstration that proje cted m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s in the S outh C oa st w ill de cr ea se e ac h y ear thr oughthe attainm ent y ear as satisfy ing th e re quirem ents of CAAsection 182 (d)(1)( A) . EP A thu s in te rp re ts C A A se ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) to a llo w aS ta te to show that, not w ith sta ndi ng a n in cr ea se in V MT , a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s w ill decline each y ear through the attainm ent y ear through a varie ty of m otor-vehiclere la te d e miss ion s c ontro ls. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 60 of 76 DktEntry: 711937849

U nde r E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n, aS ta te m ust ide nti fya nd a dopt

spe ci fi c en fo rc eable T CM s f

or the pur pose of of fs ettin g gr ow th i n V MTonl y if the em iss ion s r es ult ing f

ro m the pr oj ec te d in cr ea se in V MTw ill e xc ee d th e em iss ion s- re duc ing e ff

ec ts o f ve hic le turnove r an d f ue l sp ec if ic at ion s, le ad ing to a proje cted y ear- over-y ear increase in motor vehicle emissio ns. H ere, SCA QMD subm itt edade m onstratio n sh ow ing that m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s in the S outh Co as t w oul d de cl ine e ac h y ear thr oughthea tta inmen t y ear, obv ia tin g th e ne edto fo r the S ta te to ide nti fyor a dopt T CM s f or the spe ci fi c purpose of

of fs ettin g a ny emissio ns increases fr om VMTgrowth in the South Coast. Se e PE R 017. E PA th us ap pr ov ed SCAQMD’s d em on st rat io n a s s at is fy in g C AA sec ti on 18 2( d) (1 )(A). A s ar es ult , Ca lif

or nia w as not r eq uir edto ide nti fyor

a dopt spe ci fi c en fo rc eable TC Ms for the specific purpos e of off setting any emissio ns increases fr om VMT gr owt h i n t he So ut h C oa stun de r th e 1 -h ou r oz on e st an da rd . EPA’ s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e st at ut e is reas on ab le , and m us t b e u ph el d. As E PAha s pr ev iou slye xpl ai ne d, se e RE R 0 45–4 6, the portio n of CA A se ct ion 182( d) (1 )( A ) re qui ri ng S ta te s to ide nti fya nd a dopt T CM s “ to o ff

se t a nygr ow th i n emis si on s fr om

gro wth in [VMT]” can be read in at l eas t t wo o pp os in g ways. E PAint er pr et s th e phr as e to r eq uir e of fs ettin g T CM s on lyw he re V MTgr ow th re sul ts i n a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s in cr ea se s. Amer e gr ow th i n V MTor Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 61 of 76 DktEntry: 711937850

num bers of vehicle trips w ould not trigger the duty to submit TCM s unless s uch growth results in an aggregate m otor vehicle emissio ns increase in the are a. U nder E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n, the S ta te m ust e stabli sh the c urre nt l ev el of m oto r ve hic le emissio ns in th e ar ea, and also projec t what f uture m otor vehicle emissio ns will be, ta ki ng in to acco un t al l ap pl ic ab le co nt ro l m eas ur es . Petitioners, on the other hand, re ly on a statement in the House Committee Report asserting that whether a “ growth in emissio ns” from growth in VMT oc cu rs sho uldbe de te rm

ine d byc om

pari ng e miss ion s le ve ls t o w ha t “ w oul d oc cu r if V MT held constan t in the area. ” Se e H .R. Rep. No. 101– 490 at 24 2, re printed i n 2 A L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y o f th e C l e a n A i r

A c tA me n d me n t s o f

1 9 9 0 ( C o mm. Print 1993) (“ Le gis. Hist. ”) at 3266 [A ddendu m (“ AD D” ) 124] . This contrary vie w r ea ds the phr as e “ gr ow th i n e miss ion s” out of the statut e bypr ed ic at ing the dut y to subm

it T CM s so le lyon w he the r the re ha s be en gr ow th i n V MT . T his int er pr et at ion dis re gard s c ontro l mea sur es ( suc h a s a lte rn at ive f ue l a nd t ai lpi pe co nt ro ls ) th atde crea se ag gr eg at e m ot orve hi cl e emis si on s l ev el s i n t he area . Whe the r Pe tit ion er s’ int er pr et at ion is ev en plausi ble is not r el ev an t. B ec au se EPA’ s i s re as on ab le , itm us t b e u ph el d. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 62 of 76 DktEntry: 711937851

A. CA A S ection 182(d) (1)(A ) D irect s States t o Subm it TC Ms to Offset An y “Grow th in Em issio ns” Fr omGrow th in VM T, But Does N ot Re quire State s to Off set V MT G row th Wh ere A ggr eg at e V eh ic le Em iss ion s D o N otIn cr ea se Pe tit ion er s are mist ak en that C A A se ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) re qui re s T CM s to offset anygrowth in VMT , w hether aggregate motor vehicle emissio ns are inc re as ing or

de cr ea sin g in the are a. T he pla in l an gua ge of the statut e doe s no t spe ak dir ec tlyto the iss ue of

how to de te rm

ine w he the r the re ha s be en a“ gr ow th in emis si on s” du e to gro wth in VMT. Pe tit ion er s do not

dis put e Ca lif

or nia ’ s de m onstratio n of

de cl ini ng moto r vehicle emissio ns each y ear in the South Coast through 2010 , y et theyargue that of fs ettin g T CM s are non ethe le ss r eq uir edbe cause “ V MTha s in cr ea se d in the So uth Co as t A ir

Ba sin a nd . . . ve hic le e miss ion s are hig he r tha n th eyw oul d be if V MThe ld c onst an t i n th e ar ea . ” P et . Br . a t 49 . E PAha s c onsi ste ntl y r ej ec te d th is int er pr et at ion , w hic h w oul d in thi s c as e an d m an y oth er s f or ce S ta te s to ign or e the beneficial im

pacts of all vehicle tailpipe and alternative fuel controls and require offsetting TCMs even w hile aggregate vehicle em issio ns are declining (and even w he re no s uc h T CM s are ne ed edto m ee t the r ea sonable -f urthe r- pr ogr es s a nd atta inmen t r eq uir emen ts u nde r the CA A ). S ee RE R 0 45. E sse nti al ly , P et iti one rs ’ int er pr et at ion r ea ds the “ gr ow th i n e miss ion s” phr as e out of the statut e, r en de ri ng Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 63 of 76 DktEntry: 711937852

it m ere surplus age, as if all the A ct requires is a sim plisti c analy sis of whether VMT is in crea si ng . Petitioners’ challenge presents a question o f statutory interpretation, w hich m ust be a na ly ze d un de r the de fe re nti al tw o- part te st o f Ch ev ro n. C A A se ct ion 182( d) (1 )( A ) ins truc ts E PAa nd the S ta te s to und ertake some kin d of a na ly sis to determine: a) w hether there has bee n “ any growth in emissio ns,” and b) w hether that gr ow th i n e miss ion s r es ult ed“ fr om gr ow th i n ve hic le mile s tr av el edor num be rs of ve hic le trips in suc h are a. ” T ha t i s, use of the w or d “ gr ow th” in re fe re nc e to b oth “ em

iss ion s” a nd “ [V MT ] ” sugg es ts t w o ba se lin es , one pe gge d to changes in emissio ns and the oth er pegged to changes in VMT . The statute does not m an da te sub miss ion of

T CM s w he re the re is onl y “ gr ow th i n e miss ion s” w ith no r el at ion shi p to V MT , nor w he re the re is “ gr ow th i n V MT ” w ithno r el at ion shi p to e miss ion s. R athe r, the re m ust be gr ow th i n bo th e miss ion s a nd i n V MT , a nd the la tte r m ust be the c au se of

the f or m er . T he que sti on i s ho w to co nduc t the a na ly sis for these tw o determination s – i.e. , w hether the statute can re asonably be rea d as not r eq uiring S ta te s to sub mit T CM s w he re the y c an sho w that, not w ith sta ndi ng gr owt h i n VM T, th ere i s n o c on se qu en ti al in crea se in m ot orve hi cl e emis si on s. P e t i t i o n e r s ’ i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f th e s t a tu t e r e a d s th e p r e p o s i t i o n “f r o m” connecting th e phrase “ growth in emissio ns” and “ growth in [V MT] ” as Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 64 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378E PAint er pr et s th is p ro vis ion to re qui re that su ff ic ie nt mea sur es be a dopt edso / 12 that pr oj ec te d m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s w ill ne ve r be hig he r during the oz one (continued...) 53 m an da tin g asin gle ba se lin e pe gge d so le lyto ch an ge s in V MT . T his r ea din g unr ea sonablyvie w s th e phr as e “ gr ow th i n e miss ion s f ro m gr ow th i n [ V MT ] ” in iso la tio n f

ro m oth er f ac tor s a ff ec tin g m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s. T his r ea din g a lso renders the qualify ing ph rase “ growth in” (in ref erence to emissio ns) m ere sur plu sa ge , f or the r eq uir emen t t o a dopt T CM s “ to o ff

se t a nygr ow th i n e miss ion s fr om gr ow th i n [ V MT ] ” w oul d ha ve pr ec ise lythe sa m e m ea nin g a s ar eq uir emen t to a dopt T CM s “ to o ff

se t e miss ion s f

ro m gr ow th i n [ V MT ] . ” T his vio la te s a fundam ental canon of statutory construction : that “ [a] statute shou ld be construed so tha t e ff

ec t i s gi ve n to a ll its pr ovi sio ns, so tha t no part w ill be ino pe rativ e or supe rf luo us, voi d or

ins ign if ic an t. ” Co rl eyv. U nit edS ta te s, 129 S . Ct . 155 8, 156 6 (2 009) . I n c ontra st, E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n gi ve s mea nin g to both “ gr ow th i n emissio ns” and “ growth in [V MT] .” Whil e the statut e is c le ar

that the duty to subm

it T CM s is c ont ing en t on a

“ gr ow th i n e miss ion s” r es ult ing f ro m gr ow th i n V MT , it

is am big uous r eg ar din g ho w th is pre req ui si te “ gr owt h i n e mis si on s” is to be est ab li sh ed or s ub st an ti at ed . G ro w th i n e miss ion s migh t bemea sur eda cc or din g to w he the r gr ow th i n V MTw ill T his is E PA ’ s re sul t i n a n a ggr eg at e inc re as e in moto r ve hic le e miss ion s. / 12 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 65 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378(...continued)

se as on in on e y ear t ha n d ur in g t he oz on e se as on in th e y ear b efo re. RER 0 44 –4 5. Whe n gr ow th i n V MTa nd v eh ic le trips w oul d othe rw ise c au se am oto r ve hic le em iss ion s up turn, thi s up turn m ust be pr ev en te d. I d. T he e miss ion s le ve l at the p o i n to f u p tu rn b ec o m es a c ei l i n g o n m o t o r v eh i cl e e mi s s i o n s . Id . F o r E PA ’s de ta ile d e xpl an at ion of

thi s a na ly tic al appr oa ch , se e RE R 0 44–4 6.

54 ap pr oa ch . A lte rn at ive ly , a s P et iti one rs a sse rt , gr ow th i n e miss ion s migh t be m ea sur eda cc or din g to w he the r ve hic le e miss ion s are hig he r tha n th eyw oul d ha ve been (even if theym ayhave actuallydecre ased due to oth er c ontrols ) if V MT rem ai ne d c on st an t. Pe tit ion er s arg ue that the pla in l an gua ge of the statut e spe ak s di re ct lyto the iss ue of the appr opria te ba se lin e fr om w hic h to j udge w he the r, a nd t o w ha t e xte nt, TC Ms are required. To support this assertion, theyidentify a “ key clause, ” w hich omits the words “ growth in” prior to “ emissio ns from growth in [V MT] .” Pet. Br. at 51. O f co ur se , w ith out

the w or ds “ gr ow th i n” prior to the w or d “ em

iss ion s” in the clause “ growth in emissio ns from growth in [V MT] ,” the phrase is indeed una m big uous . H ow ev er , the statut e is n ot w ri tte n th at w ay . T he ke y c lause is actually “ growth in emissio ns from growth in [V MT] ,” and for the re asons set fo rth ab ov e, itis am

bi gu ou s. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 66 of 76 DktEntry: 711937855

Be cause the statut ory la ngua ge is sus ce pti ble to both th es e int er pr et at ion s, it is therefore “ am

bigu ous” for purposes of Chevron, and any rea sonable EPA in te rp ret at io n mus t b e u ph el d. B. EPA R ea son ab ly C on cl ud ed Th atS C A QM D ’s D em on st ra ti on Satisfies th e R equir em ent Un der CA A S ection 182(d) (1)(A ) To Ad opt TC Ms to Of

fset A ny Incre ase In Em issio ns F romGrow th In VM T A s di sc uss edabove , CA A se ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) doe s no t sp ec if y the ba se lin e fo r de te rm

ini ng w he the r the re ha s be en a“ gr ow th i n e miss ion s” due to growth in VMT , a nd here E PAdetermined that no offsetting TCMs w ere required giv en S CA Q MD ’ s de m onstratio n th at a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s, takin g int o a cc ount

gr ow th i n V MTa s w el l a s m oto r- ve hic le r el at edc ontro ls, w oul d de cr ea se e ac h y ear thr oughthe a tta inmen t y ear. P E R 0 05 a nd 0 17. E PAha s lo ng int er pr et edthi s pr ovi sio n to r eq uir e of fs ettin g T CM s on lyw he re V MTgr ow th re sul ts i n a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s in cr ea se s, thu s r eq uiring S ta te s to co nduc t a de ta ile d f

ac tua l a na ly sis of

w he the r ag gr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s are increasing, even in the fa ce of a my riad of control measures, due to that VMT inc re as e. S ee RE R 0 45–4 6. B ec au se the statut e is am big uous , the onl y que sti on unde r Ch ev ro n st ep tw o is w he the r E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n is “ ba se d on ape rm iss ibl e co nstru ct ion of

the statut e. ” Ch ev ro n, 467 U . S. a t 84 3. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 67 of 76 DktEntry: 711937856

Fi rs t, E PA ’ s lo ng- es tabli she d a nd c onsi ste nt appl ic at ion of thi s int er pr et at ion is en tit le d to e spe ci al lygr eat de fe re nc e unde r Ch ev ro n. B arnhart v. W alton, 535 U. S. 212, 220 (200 2) (“ [T ] his Court will norm ally accor d particular defere nce to an agencyinterpretation of longs tanding duration.”) ( internal quot at ion omitt ed ). E PAha s appl ie d th is i nte rp re ta tio n, e ve n in r es pons e to ad ve rs e co mm en ts, in m an y rule m aking s si nc e the e na ct m en t of the 199 0 amen dmen ts t o th e A ct

that a dde d th e T CM of

fs et pr ovi sio n. S ee , e . g. , 60 F ed . Re g. 48, 896, 48, 898 (S ep t. 21, 199 5) ( fi na l appr ova l of I lli noi s’ S IP ); 62 F ed . Re g. 23,410, 23,417 (Apr. 30, 1997) and 62 Fed. Reg. 35,100 (Jun. 30, 1997) (propos ed an d f ina l appr ova l of

N ew Je rs ey ’ s S IP ); 66 F ed . Re g. 57, 247, 57, 248–49 ( N ov. 14 , 20 01 ) (fi na l ap pr ov al of Tex as ’ SIP) . Se co nd, E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n is c onsi ste nt w iththe pur pose s of the A ct , a nd is r ea sonable in co nte xt o f the statut ory sc he m e as aw hol e, a s sh ow n bythe Age nc y ’s exp la na ti on in th e Gen eral Prea m bl e an d n um ero us rul em ak in g a ct io ns . T he T CM of

fs et r eq uir emen t a im s to pr ev en t gr ow th i n m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s fr om out w ei ghi ng e miss ion r ed uc tio n be ne fi ts o bta ine d th ro ugh oth er pr ovi sio ns of th e CAA. The T CM offset pr ovisi on is si m ply one of m any provisio ns in th e A ct ai m eda t atta ini ng the oz one N A A Q S. I n c ont ex t of the “ intri cate planni ng Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 68 of 76 DktEntry: 711937857

re qui re m en ts C ongr es s e stabli she d in ti tle I to br ing are as tow ar ds atta inmen t of the ozone standard,” RE R 045, E PA ’ s approach of viewing the T CM offset re qui re m en t i n li ght

of oth er e miss ion s r ed uc tio ns mea sur es is re as onable be cause it re co gni ze s th at

the A ct ’ s vari ous pr ovi sio ns w ork in ta nde m to atta in the NA AQ S. T his int erpretation is not “ tooth less,” P et. Br. at 55, f or it ensures that w he n gr ow th i n V MTis pr oj ec te d to c au se a n up turn in a ggr eg at e m oto r ve hic le em iss ion s th at

j eo pard iz es the e miss ion s r ed uc tio ns a ch ie ve d byoth er m oto r vehicle control m easures, the State m ust offset the increase w ith TCMs as sp eci fie d b y th e Act . Pe tit ion er s c la im

that E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n gi ve s e ff ec t on lyto the se co nd cl au se of se ct ion 182 (d )( 1) (A ) (i . e. , a dopt ing T CM s to a tta in moto r ve hic le em iss ion s r ed uc tio ns a s ne ce ssaryto co m plyw ithpe ri odi c em

iss ion s r ed uc tio n re qui re m en ts) a nd i gnor es the f ir st ( i. e. , a dopt ing T CM s to of fs et gr ow th i n em iss ion s f ro m gr ow th i n V MT ). P et . Br . a t 53 –54. Whil e thi s se co nd c lause a lso re fe rs to re duc tio ns i n m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s, it too doe s no t sp ec if

y aba se lin e an d m ayw el l r eq uir e m or e or f ew er T CM s, on a

dif fe re nt i m ple m en ta tio n sc he dul e, tha n w oul d be ne ce ssaryto m ee t the y ea r- ove r- y ear re duc tio ns i n ag gr eg at e m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s r eq uir edund er E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n of

the f ir st cl au s e ( i .e ., t h e T CM o ffs etp ro v i s i o n ) o f s ec t i o n 1 8 2 (d )( 1 )( A) . Th u s , EP A’s Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 69 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Pe tit ion er s r el y he av ilyon the H ouse Co mmitt ee Re port ( “ T he ba se lin e fo r / 13 de te rm ini ng w he the r the re ha s be en gr ow th i n e miss ion s . . . is the le ve l of ve hic le emissio ns that would occur if VMTheld constantin the area ,” 2 Le gis. Hist. at 3266 –67 [A D D 124 ] , in supp ort of the ir a lte rn at ive int er

pr et at ion of

se ct ion 182( d) (1 )( A ). H ow ev er , a s se t f orth i n th e Ch af

ee -B au cu s S ta te m en t of

S en at e Managers, the Senate view , r ather than the H ouse view, of the relevant re quired tr an sporta tio n c ontro ls w as the one ult im at el y e na ct ed . 1 L eg is. H ist . a t 88 3 (“W ithr es pe ct

to tr an sporta tio n c ontro ls i n se ve re a nd e xtr eme ar ea s ( ne w se ct ion 18 2( d) (1 ) of

th e Cl ean Air Act ), th e Hou se rece de s t o t he Sen at e . . . .”) [ADD 111] . T hus, the H ouse Co mmitt ee Re port’ s gl oss on the appl ic ab le ba se lin e fo r im ple m en tin g th e T CM of

fs et pr ovi sio n ho lds li ttl e w ei ght in de te rm

ini ng co ngr es sio na l i nte nt. 58 int er pr et at ion doe s no t, a s P et iti one rs arg ue , “ as cribe thetw o c lause s of se ct ion 18 2( d) (1 )(A) wi th th e sa m e mean in g.” Id. T hir d, w hil e sni ppe ts o f le gis la tiv e his tory m aybe r ea d, in iso la tio n, to supp ort Petitioners’ contraryinterpretation, r eliance on that legislative his tory Moreover, as alone is not s ufficient to bar E PA ’ s interpretation as unreasonable. / 13 E PAha s e xpl ai ne d, appl y ing a s th e “ ba se lin e fo r w he the r the re ha s be en gr ow th i n em iss ion s du e to i nc re as edV MT[ . . . ] the le ve l of ve hic le e miss ion s th at

w oul d o cc u r i f V M T h el d co n s t an ti n th e a re a, ” 2 Le g i s . Hi s t . a t3 2 6 6 [A DD 1 2 4 ],

“ wou ld ha ve dra st ic im

pl ic at io ns form an y of t he area s s ub ject t o t he pro vi si on ,” RE R 0 45. I n c iti es w he re V MTis gr ow ing a t hi gh r at es , suc h a s L os A nge le s, dr ac oni an T CM s li ke m an da tory no- dr ive -d ayr es tric tio ns w oul d ha ve to be im posed to fully offset incre ased VMTrates, even while ignoring beneficial Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 70 of 76 DktEntry: 711937859

im pacts of vehicle tailpipe and alternative fuel controls that result in an actual ab se nc e o f “ gr owt h i n” m ot orve hi cl e emis si on s. Id . Pe tit ion er s’ c itatio n to oth er le gis la tiv e his tory – astate m en t by Re pr es en ta tiv e Ma nto n on the Co nf er en ceRe port, e xc er

pts f ro m the S en at e Co mmitt ee Re port a nd the Co nf er en ce Re port, a nd a

state m en t f

ro m S en at or Lieberm an discussi ng the Senate bill – are similarlyunavailing because theyshed no lig ht on what baseline to use for determining whether , a nd to what extent, there wil l b e g ro wth in emis si on s d ue to gro wth in VMT. Pe tit ion er s’ r el ia nc e on the state m en t of Re pr es en ta tiv e Ma nto n in the House debate on the Confere nce Report that “ the specific provision s [are ] to offset gr ow th i n ve hic le mile s tr av el ed , ” 1 L eg is. H ist . at 13 04 [ A D D 117 ] , a nd o n th e Se na te Co mmitt ee Re port’ s r ea din g of the S en at e bil l t o “ of

fs et gr ow th i n ve hic le miles traveled,” 5 Le gis. Hist. at 8384 [AD D 134] , a ctually undermines Petitioners’ interpretation, as neither of those statem ents accurate ly captures w hat the statut ory la ngua ge a ddr es se d – a “ gr ow th i n e miss ion s f

ro m ” the se parate gr ow th i n V MT . E PAdoe s no t be lie ve it w oul d be r ea sonable to re adthe “ gr ow th in e miss ion s f

ro m ” phr as e out

of the A ct ba se d on suc h mini m al , sho rt -h an d, a nd inaccurate desc riptions of section 182(d)(1)(A) in the legislativ e history . View ed in the fuller context in which it was m ade, Representative Manton’ s statem ent was Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 71 of 76 DktEntry: 711937860

cl earl y f oc use d on the r eq uir emen t tha t S ta te s a voi d T CM s th at sim ply“ re loc at e emissio ns and cong estion,” 1 L egis. H ist. at 1304 [AD D 117] , not on what ba se li ne Sta te s mus t u se to co m pl y wit h t he TCM o ffs etreq ui rem en t. Si milarl y , the obs erva tio ns p re se nte d byS en at or Bauc us i n th e Cl ea n A ir Co nf er en ce Re port, 1 L eg is. H ist . a t 10 06–0 7 [ A D D 113 –114 ] , a nd S en at or L ie be rm an in dis cu ssi ng the S en at e bil l, 4 L eg is. H ist . a t 48 78 [ A D D 129 ] , in no w aypur port t o in te rp re t the pr ec ise mea nin g of “ an y gr ow th i n e miss ion s f ro m gr ow th i n” V MT , a nd the re fo re do n oth ing to re but E PA ’ s in te rp re ta tio n. S en at or L ie be rm an ’ s st at emen t mer el y r ef le ct s hi s e xpe ct at ion that, und er the S en at e bil l,

“ it m ay becom e necessary to im plem ent transportation control m easures to reduce our r el ia nc e on the auto m obi le , ” 4 L eg is. H ist . a t 48 78 [ A D D 129 ] ( em pha sis ad de d) , in ad dit ion to stric t c ontro ls o n e miss ion s f ro m m oto r ve hic le s. U nde r the pe tit ion er s’ int er

pr et at ion of

the T CM of

fs et r eq uir emen t, T CM s w oul d necessarilybe required to offset V MT given th e w ell-known inexorable increases in VMT th ro ug ho utth e co un try. See, e.g., PER 1 61 . Late r in th e sa m e st at em en t, Se na to r Lieb erm an st at es : “ Ourleg is la ti on . . . w oul d a lso e nc our ag e se ve re lypol lut edr eg ion s to a dopt tr an sporta tio n c ontro ls, tho ugh the de ci sio n a s to w ha t c ontro ls t o im ple m en t w oul d be le ft

up t o th e States. O ur bill does n ot im pose any requirement for taxes, rationing, or tolls.” 4 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 72 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378Petitioners challenge EP A’ s assertion that Petition ers’ interpretation of the TC M / 14 of fs et r eq uir emen t w oul d r es ult in St at es ha vin g to im

pose “ dr ac oni an ” T CM s, ci tin g th e ini tia l i nc lus ion of “ se ve ra l m ode st b ut e ff

ec tiv e T CM s” in the 200 3 South Coast AQM P, Pet. Br. at 55, y et theym ake no showing th at the T CMs ini tia llyinc lud edin the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MPw oul d ha ve e ve n c ome cl ose to of fs ettin g th e inc re as e in V MTf ro m the ba se y ear. T o pu t i n pe rs pe ct ive the burden on States under Pe tition ers’ interpretation, one need only examine a fe w pa ge s of the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MPto se e that the e miss ion s r ed uc tio ns expected from

the TC Ms included in the plan would fall far short of the total em iss ion s r ed uc tio n ne ed edto of fs et the inc re as e in V MT . F ir st, the 200 3 S outh Coast AQ MP shows that the plan is based on a forecast of a 31% increa se in VMT fr om 199 7 to 201 0. P E R 1 61. I n 20 10, m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s are pr oj ec te d in the plan to be 21 0 tons per dayof V OC. PE R 164 (Table 3-4B). U nder Petitioners’ interpretation, T CMs by the State w ould be required to offset em iss ion s e qua l t o 31 % of

m oto r ve hic le e miss ion s in 201 0, or appr oxi m at el y 50 tons p er dayof V OC [i.e ., 210 minus (21 0 divi ded by 1.31, or 160) = 50]. In co ntr as t, the 200 3 S outh C oa st A Q MPe xpe ct edthe T CM s in cl ude d in the pla n to ac hie ve onl y 5 t ons pe r da y of V O C r ed uc tio n by201 0 – a n or de r of m ag nitude le ss tha n ne ce ssaryto fu llyof fs et the inc re as e in V MT . S ee P E R 1 79. 61 Le gis. Hist. at 4879 [AD D 130] . These are pre cisely the ty pes of TC Ms that States w oul d ha ve to re sort t o if P et iti one rs ’ int er

pr et at ion of

the V MTof

fs et r eq uir emen t w er e to b e giv en e ff

ec t. / 14 T he Co urt sh oul d up hol d E PA ’ s appr ova l of S CA Q MD ’ s de m onstratio n, based on EPA ’ s reasonable interpretation of 42 U. S. C. § 751 1a(d)(1)( A) . CON CLU SION For the re asons set forth abov e, EP A r espectfully requests that the Court de nythe pe tit ion s. Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 73 of 76 DktEntry: 711937862 Re spe ct fu llysub mitt ed , JOHN C. CR UDEN Ac ting AssistantAttorneyGe neral E nvi ro nmen t & N atur al Re sour ce s D ivi sio n /s/Austin D. S ay lor AUSTIN D. SAYLO R Trial Attorney U. S. De partment of Justice E nvi ro nmen t & N atur al Re sour ce s D ivi sio n E nvi ro nmen ta l D ef

en se S ec tio n P. O . Bo x 23 986 W as hin gto n, D . C. 200 26- 3986 (2 02) 514 -1 880 OF COUNSEL: JAN M. TIERNEY U. S. Environm ental Protection Agency Of fice of Ge neral Counsel A ri el Ri os B uil din g 1 2 0 0 Pe n n s ylv an i a A v en u e, N.W. Ma il Co de 234 4A W as hin gto n, D . C. 204 60 (2 02) 564 -5 598 JEFF ERSON L. WEHLING U. S. Environm ental Protection Agency Region IX Of fice of Regional Couns el 75 Haw thorne Street Sa n F ra nc isc o, CA941 05 (4 15) 972 -3 901 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 74 of 76 DktEntry: 711937863

C ER TI F IC A TE OF C OM P LI A N C E W IT H W OR D LI M IT I ce rtifythat this brief com plies with the ty pe-volum e limitation o f Fe deral Rule of A ppellate Procedure 32(a)(7)( B). T his brief is proportio nally spaced, has a 14-point ty peface , a nd contain s 13,845 words, as counted by Corel W ordPerf ect X3, excluding the portions of the brief exem pted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)( B)(iii).

/s/Austin D. S ay lor AUSTIN D. SAYLO R Trial Attorney U. S. De partment of Justice E nvi ro nmen t & N atur al Re s. D iv. E nvi ro nmen ta l D ef

en se S ec tio n P. O . Bo x 23 986 W as hin gto n, D . C. 200 26- 3986 (2 02) 514 -1 880 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 75 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I he reb y cert ify tha t I e le ctro ni cal ly file d t he for eg oi ng BRIEF FOR RE SP O N D E N T S, a nd a

S ta tut ory a nd R eg ulatory A dde ndum , w iththe Cl erk of Co urt f or the U nit edS ta te s C ourt of A ppe al s f

or the N inth C ir cu it byusi ng the ap pe ll at e CM /ECF syste m on Nov em

be r 4, 2 00 9. I ce rtif y that a ll partic ipa nts in the c as e ar e re gis te re d C M/E CFuse rs a nd th atser vi ce wi ll be acco m pl is he d b y th e ap pe ll at e CM /ECF syste m . /s/Austin D. S ay lor AUSTIN D. SAYLO R Trial Attorney U. S. De partment of Justice E nvi ro nmen t & N atur al Re s. D iv. E nvi ro nmen ta l D ef

en se S ec tio n P. O . Bo x 23 986 W as hin gto n, D . C. 200 26- 3986 (2 02) 514 -1 880 Case: 09-71383 11/04/2009 Page: 76 of 76 DktEntry: 7119378