Opinion ID: 1427731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a remedies order

Text: The district court declared that California violated the CAA and the California SIP by failing to adopt `enforceable control measures' as required by the [CAA]. Remedies Order at 2; see also Remedies Order at 3 n. 2 ([B]y virtue of their failure to use the correct PUR data, defendants consequently were unable to adopt proper `enforceable control measures,' as they must, under the Clean Air Act.). Because neither the Wells Memorandum nor the baseline data provide an enforceable emission standard or limitation, no relief is available to El Comité under § 304 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). Nor would the district court have jurisdiction to hold, in effect, that the EPA improperly approved an invalid SIP because it lacked enforceable emission standards. That challenge, and any related relief, falls outside the purview of the district court and would have to be brought as a petition to review the EPA's rulemaking process. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). We reverse the summary judgment in favor of El Comité, vacate the Remedies Order, and remand with orders to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. REVERSED AND REMANDED.