N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C OM M UNITIES FOR

A B ETTER ENVIR ONM ENT, a

C a lifornia

non-profit orga niz ation a nd C ALIFOR

NIA C OM M UNITIES AGAINST TOXIC S, an uninc orporate d a ssoc iation, Pe titione rs, v. U.S. ENVIR ONM ENTAL PR OTEC TION AGENC Y; e t a l., R

e sponde nt s, SOUTH C OAST AIR

QUALITY M ANAGEM ENT DISTRIC T, R

e sponde nt -Inte rve nor. No. 12-72358

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Unite d State s Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL E D JUL 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and KOZINSKI a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione rs c ha lle nge the Environm e nta l Prote c t ion Age n c y ’ s (“ EPA” ) a pprova l of South C oa s t Air Qua lity M ana ge m e nt Distric t (“ Distric t” ) R ule 1315 into theC a lifornia

State Im ple m e ntation Pla

n (“ SIP” ). R

ule 1315 spe c ifie s the distric t’ s proc e d

ure s for tra c king a

nd ba nking e m issions re duc tions for la te r use a s offse t c re dits for ne w sourc e s of pollution. We c onc lude that the EPA wa s ne ithe r arbitra ry nor c a pric ious in its a

pprova l of R

ule 1315 into the

C a lifornia SIP. W e the re fore de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 1. The EPA’ s ge ne ra l pra c tic e is to re vie w a nd a pprove the rule s gove rning the o v e ra ll c onduc t of sta te offse t progra

m s, but not sim

ulta ne ously to pa ss judgm e nt on individua l tra nsa c tions. Se e 54 Fe d. R e g. 27286, 27294 n.8 (June 28, 1989). Thea ge nc y ’ s pra c tic e is a pe rm issiblec onstruc t ion of § 173(a) of the C le an Air Ac t, whic h

obliga te s SIP pe rm it progra

m s to re q uire ne w sourc e s of pollution to obta

i n “ suffic ie nt offse tting e m i ssions re duc tions.”42 U.S.C . § 7503(a )(1)(A). The EPA did not purport, nor wa s it re quire d, to va l idate the ba nke d e m i ssions re duc tions whe n it a pprove d R

ule 1315. Tra c king proc e dure s suc h a s those provide d in R

u l e 1315 a

re not e xp re ssly

re quire d by

the C le an Air Ac t, the C a lifornia

SIP, or EPA rule
. Se e N atural Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc . v . S. C oast Air Quality

Mgmt. Dist. (

N RDC ), 651 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2011). A c ha lle nge to the suffic ie n c y of offse tting e m i ssions re duc tions m ay proc e e d whe n ane w sourc e of pollution is pe rm itte d unde r the SIP. Se e id. at 1071–72. EPA did not e rr by following its ge

ne ra l pra c tic e whe n it a

pprove d R

ule 1315. 2. The EPA a c te d within its a uthority whe n it a pprove d the R

ule 1315 SIP re vision ba se d on its c onc lusion tha t R ule 1315 is e quiva le nt to fe de ra l
m e thods. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 7502(c )(8). Fe de ra l inte grity c rite ria re q uire offse ts to be qua ntifia ble and surplus. Se e 40 C .F.R . § 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C )(1)(I). EPA c onc lude d tha

t R ule 1315 se ts forth a de quate proc e dure s to qua ntify a c tua l e m ission re duc tions a

nd e nsure tha

t suc h re duc t ions a

re surplus. W e a c c ord this c onc lusion de fe re n c e , a s it is not pla i nly e rrone ous or inc onsiste nt with la w. Se e C omm. for a Be t te r Arv i n v . EPA , ___ F.3d ___, 2015 W L 2384556 a

t *3 (M ay 20, 2015). 3. W e are sim ila rly bound by the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t R ule 1315 is c onsiste nt with the

fe de ra l “b a se y e ar” e xc e ption, whic h a llows pre -ba se y e ar re duc t ions to be c re dite d if subse que nt atta inm e nt de m onstra tions a c c ount for the e m issions notwithsta

nding the ir prior c urta ilm e nt. Se e 4 0 C .F.R . § 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C )(1)(ii). The EPA a de quate ly re vie we d the Distric t’ s m ost re c e nt a tta inm e nt de m onstra

tions a nd c onfirm e d tha

t e a c h prope rly

ha ndle d pre
ba se y e ar re duc tions ba

nke d unde r R

ule 1315. Furthe rm ore , a ny c o nc e rn a

bout pre -ba se y e ar re duc tions c an be litiga te d whe n the distric t use s pre -ba s e y e are m issions offse ts ba nke d pursua

nt to R ule 1315 to a

uthoriz e a ne w sourc e pe rm it. Se e N RDC , 651 F.3d a

t 1071–72. 4. The EPA re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t the R ule 1315 SIP re vision would not inte

rfe re with re a sona

ble furthe r progre ss towa

rd atta inm e nt. “ [EPA] sha l l not a

pprove a re vision of a

pla n if the re v ision would inte rfe re with a

ny a pplic a ble re quire m e nt c onc e rning a tta inm e nt a

nd re a sona

ble furthe r progre ss . . . .” 42 U.S.C . § 7410( l). This a ppe a l sole ly

c onc e rns the Distric t’ s tra c king proc e dure s for e m issions offse ts, a s se t forth in R ule 1315. It is not a

n a ppropria te ve hic le to c ha lle nge the substa nc e of the Distric t ’ s atta i nm e nt pla ns. The EPA m ay

a pprove a SIP in pie c e m e a l fa s hion; diffe re nt portions of a SIP m ay be subm itte d at diffe re nt tim e s to be c onside re d se pa rate ly
. S e e Hall v . EPA , 273 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th C ir. 2001). TheEPA re a sona bly c onc lude d tha

t R ule 1315 will a ssist theDistric t in m e e t ing its a tta inm e nt pla

ns, a nd tha t c onc lusion wa s ne ithe r arbitra

ry nor c a pric ious. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.