UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________________________ CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CENTER F OR F OOD SAFETY, F RIENDS OF THE EARTH, INTERNATIONAL CENTE R F OR TECHNOL OGY ASSE SSMENT, an d OCEANA, P laintif fs,
v. 1:10-CV -985 (F JS) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTIO N AG ENCY and LISA JACKSON, Defendan ts.

_______________________________________________________ AP P EARANCES OF COUNSEL WEST ERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DANIEL GA LPERN , ESQ . CENTER 1216 L incoln Street Eug ene, O reg on 97401 Attorney s for Plaintiffs EARTHJUST ICE J. MARTIN WAG NER, ESQ. 426 17th Street, 6th Floor SARAH HELE N BURT, ESQ . Oakland, Ca lifornia 94612 Attorney s for Plaintiffs U.S. DEPA RTMENT OF JU STICE ANG ELINE PURD Y, ESQ. Environmental De fense Section 601 D Street, NW Suite 8000 Washington, D.C. 20004 Attorney s for De fenda

nts SCULLIN, S enior Judge ORDER Plaintiffs Center for

Biolog ical Diver sity , Center f or F ood Safety , Fr iends of the Ea rth,Interna tional Center for

Tec hnology

Assessment, and Oc eana (collec tively , "Plaintiffs" ) see k to compel De fenda

nts U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency and its Administrator, L isa J ackson (tog ether , "D efe ndant EPA" ), to respond to thre e rule making petitions reg ardingthe re g ulation of emissions from marine ve ssels, aircr aft, a nd other non-r oad eng ines and ve hicles under the Clean Air Ac t, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (" CAA" ). See ge nerallyDkt. No. 1, Complaint. Betwe en October 2007, and January

2008, Plaintiffs submit ted three petitions to Defenda nt EPA, asking it to use its authority

to regulate g ree nhouse g as emissions from marine vessels, airc raf t, and other
non-roa d vehicles. See id. at ¶¶ 48- 50. Plaintiffs' c omplaint sets forth the followingfour c laims ag ainst Defe ndant EPA: (1) for violations of the CAA for unr easona bly delay ing in r espondingto Plainti ffs' three rulemaking petitions under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a); (2) for violations of sec tion 213(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7547(a) (4), f

or fa ilure to deter

mine whether

emissions of gr eenhouse g ases a nd black c arbon from mar ine vessels a

nd eng ines ca

use or c ontribute to dang erous a ir pollution; (3) f or violations of sec tion 213(a) of

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7547(a)( 4), for failure to determine whether emissions of g ree nhouse g ases a

nd black c arbon f

rom non-roa d vehicles a

nd eng ines ca

use or c ontribute to dang erous a ir pollution; and (4) for violations of sec tion 231(a)( 2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7571(a) (2)( A), for

failure to determine whether emissions of gr eenhouse g ases a nd black
car bon from air cra ft eng ines ca use or c ontribute to dang erous a ir pollution. See ge nerally Complaint. On August 20, 2010, Defe ndant EPA filed a motion to dismiss counts two, three , and four of Plaintiffs' complaint. See Dkt. No. 9. In a Memora ndum Opinion and Orde r date d J uly 5, 2011, the Court (Ke nnedy , J .) g rante d that motion as to claims two and three but denied it as to
-2-claim four. SeeDkt. No. 25. Curre ntly befor e the Court ar e the pa rties' cross-motions for summary judgme nt with reg ard to Plaintiffs' rema ining c laims. The Court hear d oral a rgument reg ardingthese motions on March 14, 2012. Havingcar efully

revie wed the e ntire re cord in this matter, the pa rties' submissi ons and oral a rguments, as well as the applicable law, and f or the re asons stated at oral ar g ument, the Court here by ORDERS that the par

ties' cross-motions for summar y judgme nt are DENIED as moot with reg ard to Plaintiffs' first claim bec ause D efe ndant EPA has agree d in both its motion papers and duringoral a

rgument that it will respond to Pl aintiffs' three outstanding r ulemakingpetitions within nin ety day s of the date of this Orde r; and De fenda nt EPA is hereby ORDERED to do the same; and the Court further ORDERS that Def

endant EPA' s motion for summary judgme nt is GR

ANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for summar y judgme nt is DENIED with reg ard to Plaintiffs' fourth cla im beca use Plaintiffs have not shown that Defe ndant EPA has unre asonably delayed in deter

mining whether airc raf t eng ine emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may rea sonably

be anticipated to e ndang er public he alth or we lfare ; and the Court fur ther 1

The Court re minds Defenda nt EPA that the deg ree to which it is entitl ed def ere nce a nd 1 discretion is neither unlimited nor unc hecke d; and, althoug h the Court finds that Def endant EPA has not y et unre asonably

delayed in makingan enda ng erme nt determination under section 231 of the CAA re g ardingemissions from aircr aft e ng ines, such a f inding doe s not entitle Defe ndant EPA to delay

unduly in taking the appropr iate ag ency action. -3-ORDERS that Plaintiffs' c ounsel shall initiate a telephone confe renc e, usinga

profe ssional telephone c onfer encingservice , with the Court and opposing counsel on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 , at 9:30 a.m . IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Ma

rch 20, 2012 Sy rac use, Ne w York

-4-