Case: State of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors
Abbreviation: New York v. Environmental Protection Agency
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Docket Number: Nos. 03-1016, 03-1040, 03-1045, 03-1033, 03-1041, 03-1046, 03-1036, 03-1044, 03-1047, 03-1048
Citation: 369 U.S. App. D.C. 11
Volume: 369
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: State of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors.
Judges: Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Pages: 11–13

Head Matter:
431 F.3d 801
State of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors.
Nos. 03-1016, 03-1040, 03-1045, 03-1033, 03-1041, 03-1046, 03-1036, 03-1044, 03-1047, 03-1048.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2005.
Robert Anthony Reiley, Dept, of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Reg. Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, James M. Stuhltrager, James Robert May, Mid-Atlantic Environmental Law Center, Wilmington, DE, William M. Dillon, County Counsel’s Office of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, Robert N. Kwong, County Counsel’s Office of Ventura, Ventura, CA, Kathrine Currie Pittard, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Division, Sacramento, CA, Philip M. Jay, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA, David Preston Schott, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Monterey, CA, Leslyn K. Syren, Steven M. Basha, for Petitioners.
Norman Louis Rave, Jr., John Charles Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Lois Godfrey Wye, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources, Angeline Purdy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the petition of the Utility Air Regulatory Group ("UARG") for rehearing filed August 8, 2005; the petitions of the Clean Air Implementation Project ("CAIP") and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for rehearing filed August 8, 2005, and the responses thereto; and the motion of the State of North Dakota for leave to file a response to the petitions of CAIP and EPA, and the lodged response, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file be denied. The Clerk is directed to return to the State of North Dakota the lodged response. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that UARG's petition be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that CAIP's and EPA's petitions be denied. With respect to EPA's "Clean Units" rule, see the opinion attached to this order filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that EPA's request for clarification as to any retroactive effect of the ruling on Pollution Control Project provision be denied. Because no specific retroactive application of this provision is before the court, it would be premature to rule on this request.
With respect to the "Clean Units" rule, Circuit Judges Rogers and Tatel vote to deny the petitions for rehearing substantially for the reasons stated in the attached opinion.