Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/228595807/EPA-Motion-for-Stay-2-14-2014-SW-ND
Timestamp: 2016-10-01 07:31:33
Document Index: 395300779

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7604', 'Case No: 3', '§ 7401', '§ 7401', '§7407', '§ 7401', '§ 7604', '§ 1331', '§ 7604', '§ 2201', '§ 7604', '§ 54', '§ 1391', '§ 7409', '§ 7408', '§ 7409', '§ 7409', '§7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§7407', 'art, 42', '§ 7407', '§7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7514', '§ 7407', '§ 7604', '§ 50', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7604', '§ 2201', '§ 7401', '§ 7401', '§ 7604', '§ 1331', '§ 7604', '§ 7604', '§ 7604', '§ 7604', '§ 1331', '§ 7604', '§ 2201', '§ 7604', '§ 7602', '§ 7408', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7604', '§ 7410', '§ 7604', '§ 7407', '§ 2201', '§ 7604', '§ 7407', '§ 7407', '§ 7604']

EPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW ND BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 1:13-cv-109-DLH-CSM GINA McCARTHY, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. / MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE Defendant Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), respectfully requests that this matter be held in abeyance until further ordered for the following reasons. 1. This case concerns claims by the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, and Texas (“Plaintiffs”) that EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary action under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). ECF No. 1at ¶ 1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i)). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to designate areas of the country as attaining or not attaining the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for sulfur dioxide as required by CAA Section 107(d)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B). ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1. Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 7
2 2. The CAA’s citizen suit provision allows any person to sue in district court to compel EPA’s Administrator to perform any nondiscretionary act or duty under the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2) (“The district courts shall have jurisdiction . . . to order the Administrator to perform such [nondiscretionary act or duty under the CAA].)” 3. Several parties have filed separate actions against EPA in three different district courts seeking to compel EPA to perform the alleged nondiscretionary duty at issue here. The Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. filed the first such complaint in the Northern District of California on August 26, 2013. Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI, ECF No. 1 (Attachment 1). The Plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on September 12, 2013. ECF No. 1. And the State of North Carolina filed a complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 9, 2013. State of North Carolina v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C. Case No. 5:13-cv-710-F, ECF No. 1 (Attachment 2). 4. Motions to intervene as plaintiff-intervenors in the Sierra Club matter were filed by three of the Plaintiffs in this case (the States of North Dakota, Nevada, and Texas), as well as the States of North Carolina and Arizona, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, and the State of Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 7
3 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Sierra Club, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI, ECF Nos. 16 and 23. The district court granted the motions to intervene on December 6, 2013.
Sierra Club, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI, ECF No. 79 at 1, 3 (Attachment 3). 5. In the same order, the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Sierra Club, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-
cv-3953-SI, ECF No. 79 at 1, 3 (Attachment 3). The court directed the parties to confer on the issue of remedy and, if no agreement could be reached on remedy, to propose a briefing schedule regarding remedy. Id. at 4. The parties in that case, including parties in the instant case States of North Dakota, Nevada, and Texas, and EPA, are currently engaged in the process of conferring as to a remedy and have held conference calls and exchanged information and proposals. The next telephonic conference is scheduled for February 18, 2014. The parties in the Sierra Club case also proposed briefing schedules to the court, and a briefing schedule has been entered in the event the parties fail to reach a mutually agreeable remedy. 1
In response to the motions to intervene, EPA asserted that the proposed intervenors were not entitled to intervene as a matter of right, but took no position on permissive intervention. Sierra Club, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI, ECF No. 79. Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 7
4 Sierra Club, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI, ECF No. 85. (Attachment 4) (providing for briefing to be completed by May 14, and a hearing to be held on May 30, 2014). 6. Any remedy that is stipulated to or ordered in the Sierra Club matter in the Northern District of California would address the concerns that EPA anticipates the Plaintiffs would raise in this matter, and would obviate the need to litigate the issues again before this Court. EPA further anticipates that the remedy will be entered or decided by the district court in Sierra Club in the relatively near term, and likely well before the same issue could be briefed and decided by this Court. 7. For these reasons, EPA did not oppose the motion of the State of North Carolina to hold in abeyance the action filed by North Carolina in the Eastern District of North Carolina. State of North Carolina, E.D.N.C. Case No. 5:13-cv-710-F, ECF No. 16 (Attachment 5). The State of North Carolina’s motion was made on the same grounds as this motion. Id. The court granted that motion on J anuary 8, 2014, and ordered that the parties file a status report no later than May 8, 2014 (120 days from the date of the order). State of North Carolina, E.D.N.C. Case No. 5:13-cv-710-F, ECF No. 17 (Attachment 6). Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 7
5 8. For reasons of economy of resources of both the parties and the judicial system, there is little value in proceeding in this case in the District of North Dakota at this time. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, EPA respectfully requests that the Court order that: 1. this matter be held in abeyance; 2. all pending deadlines be continued; 3. the parties file a joint status report within 120 days of the date of this Court’s order, setting forth any developments in the Sierra Club matter (or any other related matter) that may affect the status of this case; 4. any party be allowed at any time to move this Court for an order terminating, in whole or in part, the order of the Court holding the matter in abeyance. A proposed order has been submitted with this motion. At the case management conference held on J anuary 13, 2014, Plaintiffs stated that they would oppose a motion for abeyance. See ECF No. 13 at 1 (Order setting schedule for briefing). Dated: February 15, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Martha C. Mann Martha C. Mann Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 7
6 United States Department of J ustice Environmental & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 martha.mann@usdoj.gov Tel: 202.514.2664 Of Counsel: Michael Thrift United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of General Counsel Air and Radiation Law Office (2344-A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington D.C. 20460 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 6 of 7
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be electronically filed on February 14, 2014. All registered counsel are to receive notice of the filing via the Court’s electronic case filing system. /s/ Martha C. Mann MARTHA C. MANN United States Department of J ustice Environment and Natural Resources Division Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19 Filed 02/14/14 Page 7 of 7
PAUL R. CORT, State Bar No. 184336 Earthjustice
50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 pcort@earthjustice.org
Tel: 415-217-2000/Fax: 415-217-2040 Attorney for Plaintiffs Sierra Club
and Natural Resources Defense Council ZACHARY M. FABISH, State Bar No. 247535 The Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW - 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 zachary.fabish@sierraclub.org
Tel: 202-675-7917/Fax: 202-547-6009 Attorney for Plaintiff Sierra Club UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION SIERRA CLUB and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL Plaintiffs, v. REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. )
Case No: 3:13-cv-03953 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.)
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page1 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 13
1. This is a suit to compel the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“Administrator” or “EPA”), to take action mandated by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401et seq. (“the Act”) to protect human health from sulfur dioxide (SO
) air pollution in communities throughout the nation. On J une 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a strengthened National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO
to protect people nationwide from serious harms due to SO
pollution, including breathing impairment, emergency room visits, lost work days, and other injuries. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (J une 22, 2010) (“J une 2010 SO
NAAQS”, or “standard”). The Act expressly required EPA to promulgate and publish, not later than J une 2, 2013, designations identifying all areas of the nation violating the revised SO
standard, as well as all areas where the standard is met, and all areas where information is inadequate to make a designation. 42 U.S.C. §7407(d)(1)(B)(i). EPA has failed to complete the required designations, thereby violating its nondiscretionary duties under the Act and delaying health and welfare protections to which Plaintiffs’ members are entitled. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 2. The instant action arises under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 1361. The relief requested by Plaintiffs is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 1361.
3. By certified letters posted on J une 4, 2013, and J une 25, 2013, Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) provided the Administrator with written notice, in the form and manner required by 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b), and 40 C.F.R. §§ 54.2, 54.3, of the Administrator’s failure to perform nondiscretionary duties under the Act as complained of herein and their intent to commence this action. More than 60 days have elapsed since Sierra Club and NRDC gave such notice, and the Administrator has continued her failure to perform such nondiscretionary duties.
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page2 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 13
4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because: a) Plaintiff Sierra Club resides in this district; b) this district is one in which Defendant EPA resides and performs its official duties; and c) a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this claim has occurred and is occurring in this district because EPA’s failure to act as complained of herein threatens the health and welfare of district residents, including members of Sierra Club and NRDC (as further detailed herein), and EPA’s Regional Office in San Francisco, California, has a substantial role in implementing the EPA duties at issue in this case. 5. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), (d), this case is properly assigned to the San Francisco or Oakland Division of this Court because Plaintiff Sierra Club and Defendant EPA both reside in San Francisco, California. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Sierra Club is a national nonprofit conservation organization existing under the laws of the State of California and headquartered in San Francisco, California. Formed in 1892, Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the Earth, to practice and promote the responsible use of the Earth’s resources and ecosystems, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives. Sierra Club has been heavily involved in advocacy for effective implementation of the revised SO
pollution and the NAAQS’s implementation. 7. Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, is a national nonprofit organization whose purpose includes safeguarding the Earth, its people, flora, fauna and natural ecosystems, and restoring the integrity of the elements that sustain life – air, land and water. NRDC is headquartered in New York, New York, and has long maintained an office in San Francisco, California. Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page3 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 13
8. Sierra Club has more than 598,000 members nationally residing in all fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including more than 144,000 members in California and more than 59,000 in the Northern District of California. NRDC has more than 363,000 members nationwide residing in all fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including more than 60,000 members in California and more than 21,000 in the Northern District of California. Sierra Club and NRDC members live, work, recreate, and conduct other activities in areas
throughout the nation that EPA has failed to designate for the revised SO
NAAQS as required by the Act. Sulfur dioxide pollution in such areas adversely affects or threatens the health and welfare of Plaintiffs’ members. The acts and omissions of EPA alleged herein cause injury to plaintiffs’ members by prolonging air quality conditions that adversely affect or threaten their health and welfare, and by nullifying or delaying measures and procedures mandated by the Act to protect their health and welfare from sulfur dioxide pollution in places where they live, work, recreate and conduct other activities. Accordingly, the health, recreational, aesthetic, and procedural interests of plaintiffs and their members have been and continue to be adversely affected by the acts and omissions of EPA alleged herein.
9. The acts and omissions of EPA alleged herein further deprive Plaintiffs and their members of procedural rights and protections to which they would otherwise be entitled, including, but not limited to, the right to judicially challenge final SO
designations adversely affecting their members, the right to enforce requirements of the Act for preparation and implementation of plans to remedy violations of the revised SO
standard in nonattainment areas and prevent violations in attainment areas, and the right to comment on and judicially challenge such plans. 10. The EPA acts and omissions alleged herein further injure plaintiffs and their members by depriving them of information to which they are entitled by law, including, but not limited to, EPA’s published identification of each area in the nation as: a) meeting the revised SO
NAAQS (“attainment”); b) not meeting the revised SO
NAAQS (“nonattainment”); or c) not classifiable as 1
For purposes of the Act’s designation requirements, EPA ordinarily defines an “area” as one or more contiguous counties (or portions thereof), or a metropolitan area. See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,552.
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page4 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 13
meeting or not meeting the NAAQS on the basis of available information (“unclassifiable”). If Plaintiffs had access to such information, they would use it to, among other things: educate their members and the public about the scope of SO
NAAQS violations nationwide, including identification of areas that violate the revised SO
NAAQS and areas that meet the NAAQS; advocate for adoption of adequate measures to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS and prevent significant deterioration of air quality in attainment areas; advocate for appropriate action by EPA to determine whether unclassifiable areas meet or do not meet the NAAQS; and more efficiently target Plaintiffs’ actions to promote effective implementation of the revisedSO
NAAQS. Such information would also assist Sierra Club and NRDC members in determining whether they are exposed to SO
levels that violate health standards and in taking action to protect themselves and their families from SO
pollution. The acts and omissions complained of herein deprive Plaintiffs and their members of the benefits of such information and thus cause them injury. 11. For all the foregoing reasons, the acts and omissions complained of herein cause Plaintiffs and their members injuries for which they have no adequate remedy at law. Granting the requested relief would redress these injuries. 12. Defendant Regina McCarthy is the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In that role, Administrator McCarthy has been charged by Congress with the duty to administer the Clean Air Act, including the mandatory duties at issue in this case. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 13. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act to “speed up, expand, and intensify the war against air pollution in the United States with a view to assuring that the air we breathe throughout the Nation is wholesome once again.” H.R. Rep. No. 91-1146 at 1 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5356, 5356.
14. Under Section 109 of the Act, EPA is required to establish NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect public health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 7409. Criteria pollutants are those pollutants that “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and are emitted by “numerous or diverse mobile or stationary Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page5 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 13
sources.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 7408(a)(1)(A)-(B). The NAAQS establish maximum allowable concentrations in the air of these pollutants, including SO
15. EPA must establish primary NAAQS at a level “requisite to protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). Once EPA has established NAAQS for criteria pollutants, the agency is obligated to review and revise the relevant NAAQS “at five-year intervals[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(1). 16. The Act requires the Governor of each state to submit to the EPA, not later than one year after promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, a list designating all areas (or portions thereof) in the State as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for that NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §7407(d)(1)(A).
17. A nonattainment area is “any area… that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the [NAAQS] for the pollutant.” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). An attainment area is “any area...that meets the [NAAQS] for the pollutant.” Id.
at § 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii). An unclassifiable area is “any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the [NAAQS] for the pollutant.” Id. at § 7407(d)(1)(A)(iii). 18. EPA must promulgate the designations of all areas (or portions thereof) submitted by each Governor under 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A), with such modifications as EPA deems necessary, “as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than two years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised [NAAQS].” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). “Such period may be extended for up to one year in the event the Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the designations.” Id. If the Governor of a state “fails to submit the list” of designations required by 42 U.S.C. §7407(d)(1)(A) in whole or in part, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(ii) requires the Administrator (as part of the action required by 42 U.S.C. §7407(d)(1)(B)(i)) to promulgate the designation that the Administrator deems appropriate for any area (or portion thereof) not designated by the State. 42 U.S.C. § 7407.
19. Thus, at the outside, EPA must promulgate designations for all areas of every state within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B). Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page6 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 6 of 13
Within the same time frame, the Administrator must publish notice in the Federal Register promulgating the designations required by 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i)&(ii). 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B)(i), 7407(d)(2)(A). 20. Promulgation of nonattainment designations triggers deadlines for states to submit plans for attaining the new or revised NAAQS for which the designations are made, and deadlines for attaining those NAAQS. For SO
, states must submit such plans for areas designated nonattainment within 18 months of the designation, and those plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of a nonattainment designation. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7514(a), 7514a(a). 21. If EPA fails to perform a non-discretionary duty, such as the duty to promulgate and publish designations of all areas no later than (at the outside) three years from the date of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i), the Clean Air Act authorizes any person to bring suit to compel EPA to perform its duty. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). STATEMENT OF FACTS 22. SO
has numerous harmful effects on human respiratory systems, including narrowing of the airways that can constrict breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. Short-term exposure to SO
has also been linked to increased hospital and emergency room admissions for respiratory illness, particularly among children, the elderly, and asthmatics. 23. Based on scientific evidence that the pre-existing SO
NAAQS did not adequately protect people’s health, on J une 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of that standard. Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (signed J une 2, 2010, published J une 22, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 50, 53, and 58). Specifically, EPA established a new one-hour SO
standard at a level of 75 parts per billion. 40 C.F.R. § 50.17(a). 24. EPA has estimated that implementation of the revised SO
NAAQS would annually prevent up to 5,900 premature deaths, 3,900 nonfatal heart attacks, 54,000 cases of asthma exacerbation, and 290,000 work loss days. 25. Promulgation of the revised SO
NAAQS triggered the Administrator’s nondiscretionary duty to promulgate and publish designations under the revised standard for all areas Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page7 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 7 of 13
of every state pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B)(i) and 7407(d)(2) as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than J une 2, 2012, two years from promulgation of the revised SO
NAAQS on J une 2, 2010.
26. The Administrator failed to promulgate and publish area designations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) for the revised SO
NAAQS for any areas in the nation by J une 2, 2012. The Administrator also failed to promulgate and publish such designations for any areas in the nation by J une 22, 2012, two years from the publication of the revised SO
NAAQS in the Federal Register. 27. On August 3, 2012, EPA announced that it was using its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i) to extend by one year the deadline for promulgating area designations for the J une 2010 SO
NAAQS, stating that“[w]ith this extension, the EPA is now required to complete initial designations for this NAAQS by J une 3, 2013.” Extension of Deadline for Promulgating Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (August 3, 2012).
28. Although the Administrator signed the final rule promulgating the revised SO
NAAQS on J une 2, 2010, EPA’s August 3, 2012 Federal Register notice took the position that the NAAQS revision was not promulgated until J une 3, 2010 because it was not publicly disseminated until J une 3, 2010. 77 Fed. Reg. at 46,295 n.1. Plaintiffs contend that J une 2, 2010 constituted the promulgation date for purposes of calculating the deadline for designations under 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). For purposes of this action, however, the difference is immaterial because, as further stated below, EPA failed to complete the required designations by either J une 2 or J une 3, 2013.
29. The Administrator failed to promulgate and publish designations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) for the revised SO
NAAQS for any areas in the nation by J une 3, 2013.
30. Even if promulgation of theJ une 2010 SO
NAAQS is deemed to have occurred on the publication date of that NAAQS in the Federal Register, J une 22, 2010, EPA also failed to Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page8 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 8 of 13
promulgate and publish designations for that NAAQS for any areas in the nation within three years of such publication date; that is, by J une 22, 2013. 31. On August 5, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register its final air quality designations for a handful of areas in the United States for the 2010 primary SO
NAAQS. Air Quality Designations for the Revised SO
NAAQS, 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (August 5, 2013) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 81). Specifically, EPA made area designations for only 29 areas in only 16 states (none in California), finding those areas to be in nonattainment for the standard based on monitored air quality data. 78 Fed. Reg. at 47,193. EPA expressly stated that it was “not yet prepared” to issue designations for any other areas in the nation and that it intended to address such designations in separate future actions. 78 Fed. Reg. at 47,191.
32. The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to promulgate designations for the SO
NAAQS for all areas in each state, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B), and to publish a Federal Register notice promulgating such designations as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(2). Because EPA has promulgated designations for only 29 areas in 16 states, EPA is in violation of its nondiscretionary duty under 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) to promulgate designations for the J une 2010 SO
NAAQS for all areas within three years of promulgation of the J une 2010 SO
NAAQS, and to publish a Federal Register notice promulgating such designations within the same three year period. CLAIM FOR RELIEF Failure to Promulgate Designations of All Areas in Each State
Under the New One-Hour SO
NAAQS 33. Sierra Club and NRDC incorporate the allegations in all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein. 34. The Administrator had a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate and publish notice in the Federal Register promulgating final designations of all areas in each State for the revised SO
NAAQS no later than three years from promulgation of the revised SO2 NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(d)(1)(B), 7407(d)(2). Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page9 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 9 of 13
35. The Administrator did not promulgate or publishnotice in the Federal Register promulgating final designations for all areas in each State for the revised SO
NAAQS within three years of promulgation of that NAAQS. 36. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Administrator has neither promulgated final designations for all areas in each State for the revised SO
NAAQS, nor has she published notice in the Federal Register promulgating such designations for all areas in each State. 37. For all the foregoing reasons, the Administrator has failed to perform acts and duties that are “not discretionary with the Administrator” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provision. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). EPA’s violations are ongoing, and will continue unless remedied by this Court. 38. Accordingly, an order from this Court is warranted declaring that the Administrator has failed to perform the above-referenced nondiscretionary acts and duties, and directing her to perform such acts and duties forthwith. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Sierra Club and NRDC respectfully request that the Court: 1. Declare that EPA is in violation of the Clean Air Act with regard to its failure to perform each mandatory duty listed above; 2. Issue a mandatory injunction requiring EPA to perform its mandatory duties by a certain date forthwith; 3. Retain jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Court’s order;
4. Grant Sierra Club and NRDC their reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys’ and expert witness fees; and 5. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 26, 2013 /s/ Paul R. Cort PAUL R. CORT, State Bar No. 184336 Earthjustice
Tel: 415-217-2000/Fax: 415-217-2040 Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page10 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 10 of 13
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sierra Club and NRDC ZACHARY M. FABISH, State Bar No. 247535 The Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW - 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 zachary.fabish@sierraclub.org
Tel: 202-675-7917/Fax: 202-547-6009 Counsel for Plaintiff Sierra Club
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1 Filed08/26/13 Page11 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 11 of 13
II. BASIS OF 1URISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(Place an 'X¨ in One Box Only) ( ) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND ( ) SAN JOSE ( ) EUREKA
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1-1 Filed08/26/13 Page1 of 2
InjunctiveandDeclaratoryRelief
REGINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental
Suit to compel U.S. EPA to promulgate area designations for 2010 sulfur dioxide standard .
08/26/2013 /s/ Paul R. Cort
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 12 of 13
CIVIL COVER SHEET Attachment
I. (c) Attorneys PAUL CORT Earthjustice
50 California Street, STE 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 217-2000 ZACHARY M. FABISH Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW - 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 675-7917
Case3:13-cv-03953 Document1-1 Filed08/26/13 Page2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 13 of 13
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-710 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official Capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 USCS § 2201 and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. The State of North Carolina, by authority of the Attorney General of North Carolina and through the undersigned attorneys, alleges: INTRODUCTION 1. The State of North Carolina (“Plaintiff”) files this suit to compel the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“Administrator” or “EPA”), to take action mandated by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (“CAA”) to designate areas within North Carolina as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for sulfur dioxide (SO
). On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of the primary NAAQS for SO
(“revised SO
NAAQS”). 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010). This promulgation triggered a nondiscretionary duty for EPA to promulgate designations of areas throughout the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable with respect to the revised SO
NAAQS. EPA did not promulgate such designations for any areas in North Carolina for the revised SO
NAAQS. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, EPA continues to fail to promulgate such designations for any areas for the revised SO
NAAQS within the State of North Carolina. Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 12
JURISDICTION 2. This is an action to compel the Defendant to perform acts or duties under the CAA that are not discretionary. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). This Court also has jurisdiction because the claim arises under the laws of the United States, namely the CAA, and because the United States is a defendant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346. 3. On August 2, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2), North Carolina gave notice to Defendant of North Carolina’s intent to sue EPA for failure to promulgate designations of areas for the revised SO
NAAQS. The sixty-day period indicated in 42 U.S.C. § 7604 has expired and the Administrator has not performed the nondiscretionary duties under the CAA as complained of herein. The Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2). 4. As shown more fully by the facts set forth below, this case presents a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution, and, more particularly, the Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim. VENUE 5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1391. The relief requested by Plaintiff is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 1361. 6. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (“OAQPS”) is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The OAQPS has a principal role in the process of promulgating designations under the NAAQS. PARTIES 7. The Plaintiff is a sovereign State. The Plaintiff is also a “person” as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). Id. § 7602(d), (e). Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 12
8. Defendant Regina McCarthy is the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In that role, Administrator McCarthy has been charged by Congress with the duty to administer the Clean Air Act, including the mandatory duties at issue in this case. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 9. The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate NAAQS for certain pollutants in the ambient air which are known as criteria pollutants, such as SO
. 42 U.S.C. § 7408(a)(1). 10. The CAA states that within one year after promulgation of new or revised NAAQS, the Governor of each State shall submit to the Administrator of EPA a list designating “all areas (or portions thereof) in the State” as “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable” for that NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A). 11. Upon promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, “the Administrator shall promulgate the designation of all areas” submitted by the Governor of each State “as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than two years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised [NAAQS].” Id. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). The Administrator must publish a notice in the Federal Register promulgating such designations and the deadline for doing so may be extended “for up to one year” in the event the Administrator determines that additional information is needed. Id. § 7407(d)(2)(A). STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revision of the primary NAAQS for SO
. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010). This promulgation triggered the States’ obligation to submit designations by June 3, 2011. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(a). Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 12
13. North Carolina complied with this obligation and submitted designations for SO
by June 3, 2011. In particular, North Carolina requested that its five counties with monitored attainment be designated as attainment, that 32 counties be designated as attainment due to having no or only small SO
sources, and that the remaining 63 counties be designated as unclassifiable/attainment. 14. The promulgation of the revised SO
NAAQS also triggered the Administrator’s nondiscretionary duty to promulgate designations of nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable for the revised SO
NAAQS for all areas pursuant to CAA Section 107(d)(1)(B) by no later than June 2, 2012, and to publish a notice in the Federal Register promulgating those designations. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). 15. On August 3, 2012, EPA announced in the Federal Register that it was using its authority under Section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) of the CAA to extend the deadline for promulgating area designations for the revised SO
NAAQS by one year. 77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012). The notice stated that, “[w]ith this extension, the EPA is now required to complete . . . designations for this NAAQS by June 3, 2013.” Id. 16. On February 6, 2013, EPA acknowledged that no monitors showed violations of the revised SO
NAAQS in North Carolina. EPA stated that it was “not yet prepared to propose designation action in North Carolina,” and therefore, in direct contravention of the CAA, indicated that it was “deferring action to designate areas in North Carolina.” EPA stated that it anticipated that it would “proceed with designation action in North Carolina once additional data are gathered pursuant to our comprehensive implementation strategy.” 17. On April 8, 2013, the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources responded to EPA, noting that there is no “deferral” option for Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 12
designations under the CAA and requesting that EPA designate all areas in North Carolina as attainment/unclassifiable. 18. On August 2, 2013, pursuant to Section 304(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2), North Carolina gave notice to Defendant of North Carolina’s intent to sue Defendant for failure to designate areas for the revised SO
NAAQS. 19. On August 5, 2013, EPA published in the Federal Register final air quality designations for the revised SO
NAAQS for only 29 areas, encompassing parts of only sixteen states. 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013). EPA only promulgated designations for areas that included air quality monitors showing nonattainment. EPA did not designate any areas as attainment even if monitors in those areas showed attainment. EPA did not designate any areas in North Carolina – including areas with monitored attainment – for the revised SO
NAAQS. EPA also did not designate any areas in North Carolina as “unclassifiable.” 20. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, EPA continues to fail to designate any areas for the revised SO
NAAQS within the State of North Carolina. 21. North Carolina is prejudiced by EPA’s failure to follow the requirements of the CAA. North Carolina is charged with submitting a plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the revised SO
NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a). North Carolina’s efforts to implement the requirements of the CAA are adversely impacted by EPA’s failure to promulgate designations. EPA’s failure to designate areas as required by the CAA subjects North Carolina to a detrimental uncertainty that will negatively affect the State’s economy, private development, and the public interest. Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 12
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Failure to Perform Nondiscretionary Duty to Promulgate Designations of Areas in North Carolina Regarding the Revised SO
NAAQS 22. All allegations in paragraphs 1 to 19 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Claim for Relief as if they were set forth fully herein. 23. The CAA required the Defendant to promulgate designations of all areas in North Carolina as attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable by no later than June 3, 2013. 24. The Defendant failed to perform that duty by said deadline and the Defendant continues to fail to perform that duty. 25. Section 304 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, permits any person, which includes a State, to bring an action for injunctive relief to compel the Defendant to perform the aforesaid nondiscretionary duty. 26. The Plaintiff has satisfied the prerequisites to suit set forth in the CAA as set forth above. 27. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Administrator is in violation of the nondiscretionary duty imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1) and (d)(2) and the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of such violation under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and injunctive relief compelling the Defendant to perform her duty under 42 U.S.C. § 7604. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the State of North Carolina respectfully requests that the Court: 1. Declare that the Administrator is in violation of the CAA with regard to her failure to perform the mandatory duties as established above; 2. Issue a mandatory injunction requiring the Administrator to perform her mandatory duties by a certain date set by the Court; Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 6 of 12
3. Retain jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Court’s order; 4. Grant North Carolina its reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys’ and expert witness fees; and 5. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper. This 9th day of October, 2013. Respectfully submitted, ROY COOPER Attorney General By: /s/ Marc Bernstein Marc Bernstein Special Deputy Attorney General NC State Bar No. 21642 E-mail Address: mbernstein@ncdoj.gov North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone Number: (919)716-6600 Fax Number: (919) 716-6767 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of North Carolina Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 7 of 12
See Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet
Suit to compel U.S. EPA to promulgate area designations for 2010 sulfur dioxide standard
10/09/2013 /s/ Marc Bernstein
Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 8 of 12
Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet for State of North Carolina v. Regina McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Response to Item I. (c)
NC State Bar No. 21642
Phone Number: (919) 716-6956
Fax Number: (919) 716-6763
E-mail Address: mbernstein@ncdoj.gov
Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 9 of 12
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT
EasternDistrict of NorthCarolina
REGINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United States
REGINA MCCARTHY, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
WilliamJ efferson Clinton Federal Building
(Additional representatives of defendant to be served per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)&(2)
are listed on Continuation Page)
Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. Department of J ustice
Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 10 of 12
was received by me on(date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at(place)
on(date) ; or
on(date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 11 of 12
To: (Names and addresses of additional representatives of defendant) (continued)
Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/13 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 12 of 12
REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity
as Administrator of the United States
Environmental. Protection Agency,
No. C 13-3953 SI
ORDER GRANTING STATES’
MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was originally scheduled for a hearing on December
13, 2013. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the motion was submitted on the papers. In addition, two
motions to intervene in this case are scheduled for a hearing on December 13, 2013. Pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the motions to intervene are appropriate for resolution without
oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motions to intervene and
GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Docket Nos. 16, 23 & 55. The Court DENIES as
moot North Carolina’s motion to expedite and motion to alter the procedure for developing a remedy.
Docket Nos. 68 & 70.
I. States’ motions to intervene
The Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, the State of Louisiana
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document79 Filed12/06/13 Page1 of 4 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-3 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 4
Accordingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the parties’ arguments about
intervention as of right. 2
Department of Environmental Quality, and the states of North Carolina, North Dakota, Arizona, Nevada
and Texas (collectively “the States”) seek to intervene as plaintiffs a matter of right under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a), or alternatively permissively under Rule 24(b). Plaintiffs oppose any
intervention by the States, while defendant opposes intervention as of right but takes no position with
regard to permissive intervention. Plaintiffs filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to compel defendant to
perform her non-discretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to promulgate and publish designations
identifying all areas of the nation that meet or fail to meet the revised sulfur dioxide national primary
ambient air quality standard (“the standard”), as well as all areas of the nation where information is
inadequate to make a designation. As discussed infra, defendant does not dispute liability, and thus at
all that is at issue is the remedy. The States contend that they have a significant protectable interest in
this case because, inter alia, the States are responsible for devising and implementing plans to achieve
pollution reduction for any areas designated as “nonattainment” areas. The States argue that they have
an interest in whatever remedy the Court orders, whether that remedy is limited to setting a deadline for
the EPA to make its designations or also includes requirements that affect the process for making
Rule 24(b)(2) provides that on timely application the Court may allow a non-party to intervene
“when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.”
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 24(b)(2). “The language of the rule makes clear that if the would be intervenor’s
claim or defense contains no question of law or fact that is raised also by the main action, intervention
under Rule 24(b)(2) must be denied. But, if there is a common question of law or fact, the requirement
of the rule has been satisfied and it is then discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention.”
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court exercises its discretion and concludes that the States should be granted permissive
The States’ motions are timely, as they were filed one month after this case was filed.
Even if, as the parties assert, the remedy in this case will be limited to a court-ordered deadline for EPA
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document79 Filed12/06/13 Page2 of 4 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-3 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 4
The Court does not find it appropriate to condition the States’ intervention in any of the ways
suggested by the parties. If necessary and at the proper time, the Court will consider issues regarding
attorneys’ fees and the relationship between this action and the other related cases pending in other
to complete its designations, the States will be directly affected because they have an interest in when
the EPA makes its designations. The States assert that until the EPA acts on the States’
recommendations about sulfur dioxide area designations, the States do not know whether their
individual sulfur dioxide programs are adequate, and they claim that they want the designation process
completed as soon as possible. It is also undisputed that if the EPA designates areas within any of the
intervening states as nonattainment, the States are required to take steps to bring those areas into
compliance with the standard. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the States’ motions to
intervene. Docket Nos. 16 and 23.
II. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and request an order
determining that defendant is in violation of her non-discretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to
promulgate and publish designations for all areas of each state regarding whether those areas meet the
revised sulfur dioxide national primary ambient air quality standard no later than three years from
promulgation of the standard on J une 2, 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (signed J une 2, 2010, published J une
22, 2010). Defendant does not dispute liability, and accordingly the Court finds as a matter of law that
defendant is in violation of her non-discretionary duty under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7407(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A) to promulgate and publish designations for all areas of each state for the
standard no later than three years from promulgation of the standard.
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document79 Filed12/06/13 Page3 of 4 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-3 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 4
The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the remedy, and if they are unable to agree
on the remedy, the parties shall stipulate if possible to a briefing schedule regarding the remedy. The
parties shall file either a joint stipulation or separate submissions regarding a proposed schedule within
21 days of this order.
Dated: December 6, 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document79 Filed12/06/13 Page4 of 4 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-3 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 4
SCHEDULE ON REMEDY
The parties and intervenors have filed competing proposals regarding the briefing schedule
on the remedy. The Court hereby adopts the following briefing schedule, which permits for
staggered briefing and separate briefs by the Intervenor States and North Carolina:
Party/Document Due Date Page Limit
Plaintiffs’ Opening Remedy
March 17, 2014 25 pages
Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Opening
Remedy Brief (separate briefs
by North Carolina and other
states permissible)
Defendant’s Response April 16, 2014 35 pages
Plaintiffs’ Response-Reply April 30, 2014 15 pages
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document85 Filed01/15/14 Page1 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-4 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 2
Intervenor-Plaintiffs’
Response-Reply (separate
briefs by North Carolina and
other states permissible)
April 30, 2014 15 pages
Defendant’s Reply May 14, 2014 25 pages
Hearing May 30, 2014 at 9:00 am
Dated: J anuary 15, 2014 SUSAN ILLSTON
Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document85 Filed01/15/14 Page2 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-4 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 2
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-710 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official Capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNOPPOSED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE Plaintiff State of North Carolina respectfully requests that the Court hold this case in abeyance until further order for the following reasons: 1. This case concerns the Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) alleged failure to take a nondiscretionary action that is required by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Compl. ¶¶ 22-27 (ECF Doc. No. 1); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). The deadline for EPA to take that action passed on June 3, 2013. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23 (ECF Doc. No. 1); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012). The CAA allows a party to sue in district court to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary actions, but the party must first notify EPA of its intent to sue and allow sixty days to pass. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2). Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 16 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-5 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 5
2 2. Since June 3, 2013, several parties, including Plaintiff the State of North Carolina, issued notices to EPA regarding EPA’s alleged failure to perform the nondiscretionary duty at issue in this case. 3. Beginning in August 2013, several parties filed actions against EPA in different district courts seeking to compel EPA to perform the nondiscretionary duty at issue in this case. The Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. filed one such case in the Northern District of California on August 26, 2013. Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, 13-cv-3953 (N.D. Cal.). North Carolina filed this case in the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 9, 2013. 4. Because Sierra Club was filed first, North Carolina sought to intervene as a plaintiff in that case. The district court allowed North Carolina’s motion on December 6, 2013. Order Granting States’ Motions to Intervene & Granting Plfs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-3, Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, 13-cv-
3953 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (N.D. Cal. ECF Doc. No. 79). 5. In that same order, the Northern District of California granted judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability. Id. at 3. The court then ordered the parties to consult on the issue of remedy and, if no agreement could be reached on remedy, to propose a briefing schedule regarding remedy. Id. at 4. The parties, including the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case, are currently engaged in the process of developing a remedy, or in the alternative, a briefing schedule regarding Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 16 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-5 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 5
3 remedy, in the Northern District of California. No final substantive or procedural agreements on those issues have yet been reached. 6. North Carolina anticipates that any remedy that is stipulated or ordered in the Sierra Club matter in the Northern District of California would address the concerns that it intends to raise in the Eastern District of North Carolina and vitiate the need to litigate the issues here. North Carolina further anticipates that the questions surrounding remedy will be resolved by the district court in Sierra Club in the relatively near term. 7. North Carolina submits that for reasons of economy of resources of both the parties and the judicial system, there is little value in proceeding right now with this case in the Eastern District of North Carolina. 8. North Carolina has shared this motion with EPA and North Carolina represents that EPA does not oppose the granting of this motion. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court order that: 1. this matter be held in abeyance; 2. all pending deadlines be continued; 3. the parties file a joint status report within 120 days of the date of this order setting forth any developments in the Sierra Club matter (or any other matter), and any other facts, that may affect the status of this case. Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 16 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-5 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 5
4 4. any party be allowed at any time to move this Court for an order terminating, in whole or in part, the order of the Court holding the matter in abeyance. A proposed order has been submitted with this motion. Respectfully submitted, ROY COOPER Attorney General By: /s/ Marc Bernstein Marc Bernstein Special Deputy Attorney General NC State Bar No. 21642 E-mail Address: mbernstein@ncdoj.gov By: /s/ Scott Conklin Scott Conklin Assistant Attorney General NC State Bar No. 28257 E-mail Address: sconklin@ncdoj.gov By: /s/ Brenda Menard Brenda Menard Special Deputy Attorney General NC State Bar No. 35445 E-mail Address: bmenard@ncdoj.gov North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone Number: (919) 716-6600 Fax Number: (919) 716-6767 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of North Carolina January 7, 2014 Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 16 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-5 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 5
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send notification of such filing to all parties. ROY COOPER Attorney General By: /s/ Marc Bernstein Marc Bernstein Special Deputy Attorney General NC State Bar No. 21642 E-mail Address: mbernstein@ncdoj.gov North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone Number: (919)716-6956 Fax Number: (919) 716-6763 Attorney for Plaintiff State of North Carolina Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 16 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-5 Filed 02/14/14 Page 5 of 5
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-710 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ORDER ) HOLDING CASE IN REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official ) ABEYANCE Capacity as Administrator of the United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) Defendant. ) ----------------------------
The Plaintiff State of North Carolina having moved to hold this case in abeyance, upon good cause shown including the representation that the Defendant does not oppose the motion, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS as follows: 1. This matter shall be held in abeyance until further order of the Court. 2. All pending deadlines are continued. 3. The parties file a joint status report within 120 days of the date of this order setting forth any developments in the matter of Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, 13-cv-3953 (N.D. Cal.), or any other matter and any other facts that may affect the status of this case. Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 17 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-6 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 2
4. Any party may at any time to move this Court for an order terminating, in whole or in part, the order of the Court holding the matter in abeyance. SO ORDERED. This the 8th day of January, 2014. ~ J ~ e to Jaj){es C. Fox Senior United States District Judge 2 Case 5:13-cv-00710-F Document 17 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:13-cv-00109-DLH-CSM Document 19-6 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 2
AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsCopyright © 2016 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaEPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW ND by freedom10016 viewsEmbedRelated interestsPlaintiff, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Code, Sierra Club, Clean Air Act (United States)DownloadDescriptionEPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW NDEPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW ND Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Documents similar to EPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW NDUS Treasury: fr68 65844by TreasuryRule: Air pollution control; new motor vehicles and engines: Virginiaby Justia.comRule: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Indianaby Justia.comBooks similar to EPA Motion for Stay 2/14/2014 SW NDThe Clean Water Act Handbookby American Bar AssociationCapitan, New Mexico: From the Coalora Coal Mines to Smokey Bearby Gary CozzensStudies in Environmental Scienceby Andre Blanc-LaPierreDocuments about Plaintiff2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and Lewandowskiby DailyMail.comMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeRose - Jane Doe Text Messagesby Deadspin