T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT L AT I NO I S S UE S F OR UM; ME DI C AL A D V O CA TES FO R H EA LTH Y A I R; SI ERRA CLU B, P et i t i o n ers, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S E NV I R ON ME NT AL P R OT E C T I ON AG E NC Y, R e s p o n d e n t, S A N JO A Q U IN V A L L E Y U N IF IE D A IR POLL UTI ON CONTROL DI ST RI CT ; A I R C O A L I T I O N T E A M, R esp o n d en t s-In t erv en o rs. N o. 06- 75831 EPA ME MOR AN DU M *

L AT I NO I S S UE S F OR UM; ME DI C AL A D V O CA TES FO R H EA LTH Y A I R; SI ERRA CLU B, P et i t i o n ers, v. N o. 08- 71238 EPA 

# FI LED MA R 02 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS Case: 06-75831 03/02/2009 Page: 1 of 5 DktEntry: 68272502

UN I T E D S T AT E S E NV I R ON ME NT AL P R OT E C T I ON AG E NC Y, R e s p o n d e n t, S A N JO A Q U IN V A L L E Y U N IF IE D A IR POLL UTI ON CONTROL DI ST RI CT ; A I R C O A L I T I O N T E A M, R esp o n d en t s-In t erv en o rs.

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

aF i na l A c t i on of

the E nv i ronm ent al P rot ec t i on A gency A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry10, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , C A N B Y an d H A W K IN S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T hese consol i dat ed pet i t i on s f or re vi ew chal l enge the E nv i ronm ent al P r o te c tio n A g e n c y ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e S a n J o a q u in V a lle yo f C a lif o rn iais in c om pl i anc e w i th C l e a n A i rA c ts t a nda r ds f orP M - 10. T he pe t i t i one r s a r e the L a t i no I s s ue s F orum a nd othe rnon- pr of i tgr oups c onc e rne d w i th the qua l i tyof the e n v ir o n m e n t in c e n tr a l C a lif o rn ia . T h e A g e n c y ’s f

in a l a c tio n w a s p u b lis h e d in M a r c h o f 2 0 0 8 . 7 3 F e d . R e g . 1 4 6 8 7 ( M a r . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) . O u rr e v i e w i s u n d e rth e A d mi n i s tr a t i v e Pr o c e d u r e A c t , 5 U . S. C. § 7 06 (2)( A ), and i s l i m i t ed t o con si deri ng w hether the ac t i on of the E P A w as

Case: 06-75831 03/02/2009 Page: 2 of 5 DktEntry: 68272503

a rbi tr a ry orc apr i c i ous . T he r e a r e be f or e us no i s s ue s of

l a w r e qui r i ng s t a tut oryor r e g u la to ry in te rp r e ta tio n . T he pe t i t i one r s ’ pr i nc i pa l c ont e nt i on i s tha tthe A ge nc ya c t e d a rbi tr a r i l yor capri ci ou sl y i n d et erm i ni ng thattw o “ exce edances ” of the P M -10 st andard r e f l e c t e d i n m oni t or s a tB a ke r s f i e l d, O i l da l e , a nd C or c or a n w e r e c aus e d by

“ exce pt i on al event s” w i thi n the m eani ng of 42 U . S . C . § 7 61 9(b). T he pet i t i on er s s ubm i tt e d va r i ous obj e c t i ons a nd a l t e rna t i ve s c i e nt i f i c ba s e s t o s how tha tthe ex ceed an ces w ere n o t“ ex cep t i o n al ev en t s, ” i . e. , b eyo n d th e co n tro l o f th o se char ged w i th reduci ng ai r pol l ut i on . T he E P A expl ai ned the re as on s w hy i tw as re l yi ng on i t s ow n sci ent i fi c dat a and m od el i ng form ul as t o d et erm i ne that unus ua l l y hi gh w i nds c aus e d the e xc e e da nc e s . I t s e xpl a na t i on w a s nota rbi tr a ry or c ap r ic io u s . T hi s c ou rtow es defe re nce t o the E P A i n the choi ce of sc i ent i fi c m etho d that i s w i thi n i t s ow n e xpe rt i s e . A s s ’ n of I rr i t a t e d R e s i de nt s v. E P A , 423 F . 3d 989, 997 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T he pet i t i on er s s ub m i tt ed an aff i davi tof a s ci ent i stw ho di sa gree d w i th the m e thodol ogi e s of the E P A , butthe A ge nc yt ook hi s vi e w i nt o a c c ount w he n i tr e vi e w e d a l l of

the s c i e nt i f

i c e vi de nc e be f

or e i s s ui ng i t s f

i na l de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe s e e xc e e da nc e s w e r e c aus e d by“ e xc e pt i ona l e ve nt s . ” T he e xi s t e nc e of sc i ent i fi c di sa gree m enti s nota bas i s f or concl ud i ng thatan agency a ct ed Case: 06-75831 03/02/2009 Page: 3 of 5 DktEntry: 68272504

i rr a t i ona l l y i n c hoos i ng one vi e w ove ra nothe r . S e e B e a rL a ke W a t c h, I nc . v. F E R C , 324 F . 3d 1071, 1076- 77 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ; C e nt . A r i z . W a t e rC ons ol . D i s t . v. E P A , 99 0 F . 2d 15 31 , 15 40 (9th C i r. 19 93 ). P e t i t i one r s a l s o di s put e the E P A ’ s ha ndl i ng of e xc e e da nc e s r e c or de d on a m o n ito rlo c a te d o n th e tr ib a l r e s e rv a tio n , k n o w n a s th e S a n taR o s aR a n c h e r ia m oni t or . T he e xc e e da nc e s r e c or de d the r e w e r e appa r e nt l yc aus e d byc ons truc t i on a c t i vi ty of

at e m por a ry na tur e . T he E P A r e a s onabl yde t e rm i ne d be c aus e the e x c e e d an c e s w e r e th e r e s u lt o f a n “e x c e p tio n a l e v e n t,” th e yw e r e n o t lik e lyto r e c ur . P e t i t i one r s s e e m t o qua rr e l w i th the E P A ’ s de s c r i pt i on of the type of construct i on ac t i vi ty bei ng un dert aken, bu tdo no tse ri ou sl y di sput e that c ons truc t i on w a s ongoi ng dur i ng the pe r i od tha tthe m oni t or s w e r e i n ope r a t i on a nd r e c or di ng e xc e e da nc e s of the P M - 10 s t a nda r d. W e the r e f or e c a nnots a ytha tthe E P A ’ s c on cl usi on thatconstruct i on ac t i vi t i es caused the excee dances w as arbi trary o rc ap r ic io u s . F in a lly , p e titio n e r s c h a lle n g e th e in te r im ap p lic a tio n o f th e “C le a n D a ta P ol i cy ” t o the S an Joaqui n V al l eybefore i tw as form al l y r edes i gn at ed as an att ai nm entar eafor P M -10. T he C l ean D at a P ol i cyexpres sl y app l i es t o are as curr ent l y a tt ai ni ng ozon e and P M -2. 5 st andards, bu tthere i s no si m i l arw ri tt en re gu l at i on go verni ng ar ea s a tt ai ni ng P M -10 st andards. Itw as no tun re as on abl e,

Case: 06-75831 03/02/2009 Page: 4 of 5 DktEntry: 68272505

how e ve r , f

orthe E P A t o appl y the pol i c yt o a n a r e atha tw a s c urr e nt l ya tt a i ni ng the P M -10 st andards. A s the E P A ra t i on al l y e xp l ai ned, i f an are a i s i n com pl i ance w i th P M - 10 s t a ndar ds , the n f urthe rpr ogr e s s f

orthe purpos e of

e ns ur i ng a tt a i nm e nt is n o t n e c e s s a ry . T he pet i t i on s are D EN I ED . Case: 06-75831 03/02/2009 Page: 5 of 5 DktEntry: 6827250