Opinion ID: 672915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inadequacy of Arizona's 1979-82 Submissions to the EPA?

Text: 52 Phoenix claims that the 1982 Conditional Approvals of the Mass Transit Provisions were improper because Arizona's submissions to the EPA relating to mass transit during the 1979-82 period were not in compliance with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(b) (1988). Section 7502(b) required plans submitted under Part D to include 53 written evidence that the State, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, the necessary requirements and schedules and timetables for compliance, and are committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the plan. 54 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(b)(10) (1988). Phoenix claims that nothing in the record shows that the Maricopa County SIP proposal contained such written evidence. 55 Phoenix is too late to claim that the plan submitted was deficient under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(b)(10) (1988), however. The city had sixty days within which to object to the approval of a plan, see id. Sec. 7607(b)(1), but failed to do so. Phoenix has thus waived the argument that the approval was defective. See Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 552 F.2d 25, 34-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Beame v. Friends of the Earth, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 296, 54 L.Ed.2d 188 and cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 296, 54 L.Ed.2d 188 (1977); American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F.Supp. 1285, 1289-91 (D.N.J.1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3d Cir.1989). 56