throbber
Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRENT J. NEWELL (State Bar No. 210312)
`LAW OFFICES OF BRENT J. NEWELL
`245 Kentucky Street, Suite A4
`Petaluma, CA 94952
`Tel: (661) 586-3724
`brentjnewell@outlook.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Center for Community Action
`and Environmental Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND
`ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, a nonprofit
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY, MICHAEL
`REGAN, in his official capacity as
`Administrator of the United States
`Environmental Protection Agency, and
`MARTHA GUZMAN, in her official capacity
`as Regional Administrator for Region 9 of the
`United States Environmental Protection
`Agency,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (“CCAEJ”) files this
`1.
`Clean Air Act citizen suit to compel Defendants United States Environmental Protection Agency
`(“EPA”), Michael Regan, and Martha Guzman to approve, disapprove, or partially approve/disapprove
`the Innovative Clean Transit regulation (“ICT regulation”).
`Fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”) and ozone air pollution in the South Coast air basin has
`2.
`caused, and continues to cause, a public health crisis. According to the American Lung Association’s
`State of the Air 2022 report, counties in the South Coast Air Basin rank among the worst in the United
`States for ozone and PM2.5. San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties are the first, second,
`and third most ozone-polluted counties in the United States, respectively. For long-term exposure to
`PM2.5, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties rank as the ninth, eleventh, and sixteenth
`most polluted counties in the United States, respectively.
`The Clean Air Act is a model of cooperative federalism, whereby the EPA sets health-
`3.
`based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS” or “standards”) and the states develop the
`plans and strategies to achieve those standards. States submit their plans and strategies to EPA for
`review and approval. EPA shall approve a submission if it meets the Act’s minimum requirements. EPA
`and citizens may enforce the EPA-approved State Implementation Plan as a matter of federal law to hold
`states and regulated entities accountable.
`The California Air Resources Board (“Board”) adopted the ICT regulation as part of
`4.
`California’s strategy to reduce PM2.5 and ozone-forming air pollution, and the Board submitted the ICT
`regulation to the EPA for review and approval as part of the State Implementation Plan.
`EPA’s review and approval of the ICT regulation, with public notice and opportunity to
`5.
`comment, ensures that the ICT regulation meets minimum Clean Air Act requirements, including but not
`limited to ensuring the regulation is enforceable by citizens and the EPA.
`To date, EPA has failed to take final action on the ICT regulation. §
`6.
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action to compel the performance of a
`
`7.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nondiscretionary duty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2) (citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act)
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
`The declaratory and injunctive relief CCAEJ requests is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§
`8.
`2801(a) and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 7604.
`On May 16, 2022, CCAEJ provided EPA, Regan, and Guzman written notice of the
`9.
`claims stated in this action at least 60 days before commencing this action, as required by Clean Air Act
`section 304(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 54.2 and 54.3. A copy of the notice letter,
`sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, is attached as Exhibit 1. Although more than 60 days
`have elapsed since CCAEJ provided written notice, EPA has failed to take action and remains in
`violation of the Clean Air Act.
`
`VENUE
`Venue lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1),
`10.
`because the Regional Administrator for Region 9 is located in San Francisco County and because EPA’s
`alleged violations relate to the duties of the Regional Administrator in San Francisco.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Because the failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty alleged in this Complaint relates
`11.
`to the duties of the Regional Administrator located in San Francisco County, assignment to the San
`Francisco Division of this Court is proper under Civil L.R. 3-2(c) and (d).
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
`12.
`is a progressive, base-building, non-profit corporation that brings communities together to find
`opportunities for cooperation, agreement, and problem solving to improve their social and natural
`environment. CCAEJ uses the lens of environmental health to achieve social change, and works within
`communities to develop and sustain democratically based, participatory decision-making that promotes
`the involvement of a diverse segment of the community in ways that empower communities. CCAEJ
`prioritizes air quality and water quality advocacy to secure environmental justice and improve public
`health and welfare in the Inland Empire and South Coast Air Basin. Members of CENTER FOR
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE reside in Riverside and San Bernardino
`counties and in the South Coast Air Basin.
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
`13.
`is a person within the meaning of section 302(e) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e), and may
`commence a civil action under section 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a).
`14. Members of CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
`JUSTICE live, raise their families, work, and recreate in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the
`South Coast Air Basin. They are adversely affected by exposure to levels of PM2.5 and ozone air
`pollution that exceed the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The adverse effects of
`such pollution include actual or threatened harm to their health, their families’ health, their professional,
`educational, and economic interests, and their aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the environment
`in the Inland Empire and South Coast Air Basin.
`The Clean Air Act violation alleged in this Complaint also deprives CENTER FOR
`15.
`COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE members of certain procedural rights
`associated with EPA’s required action on the ICT regulation, including notice of, and opportunity to
`comment on, EPA’s action and the capacity to enforce the ICT regulation.
`The Clean Air Act violation alleged in this Complaint has injured and continues to injure
`16.
`CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE members. Granting the
`relief requested in this lawsuit would redress these injuries by compelling EPA action that Congress
`required as an integral part of the regulatory scheme for improving air quality in areas violating the
`National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
`Defendant UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is the
`17.
`federal agency Congress charged with implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. As
`described below, the Act assigns to the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
`AGENCY certain nondiscretionary duties.
`Defendant MICHAEL REGAN is sued in his official capacity as Administrator of the
`18.
`United States Environmental Protection Agency. He is charged in that role with taking various actions to
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`implement and enforce the Clean Air Act, including the actions sought in this Complaint.
`Defendant MARTHA GUZMAN is sued in her official capacity as Regional
`19.
`Administrator for Region 9 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. She is responsible
`for implementing and enforcing the Clean Air Act in Region 9, which includes California and the South
`Coast Air Basin.
`
`STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
`The Clean Air Act establishes a partnership between EPA and the states for the
`20.
`attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). See 42 U.S.C.
`§§ 7401-7515. Under the Act, EPA has set health-based NAAQS for six pollutants, including ozone and
`PM2.5. States must adopt a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) that contains enforceable emissions
`limitations necessary to attain the NAAQS and meet applicable requirements of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§
`7401(a)(1), (a)(2)(A); 7502(c)(6). States must submit all such plans and plan revisions to the EPA. 42
`U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).
`21. Within 60 days of EPA’s receipt of a proposed SIP revision, the Clean Air Act requires
`EPA to determine whether the submission is sufficient to meet the minimum criteria established by EPA
`for such proposals. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(1)(B). If EPA fails to make this “completeness” finding, the
`proposed SIP revision becomes complete by operation of law six months after a state submits the
`revision. If EPA determines that the proposed SIP revision does not meet the minimum criteria, the state
`is considered to have not made the submission. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(C).
`22. Within twelve months of an EPA finding that a proposed SIP revision is complete (or
`deemed complete by operation of law), EPA must act to approve, disapprove, or approve in part and
`disapprove in part, the submission. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2).
`If EPA disapproves the revision, in whole or in part, then the Clean Air Act requires EPA
`23.
`to impose sanctions against the offending state or region, including increased offsets for new and
`modified major stationary sources or a prohibition on the use of federal highway funds, unless the state
`submits revisions within 18 months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7509(a), (b). EPA must impose both offsets and
`highway funding sanctions within 24 months unless the state has corrected the deficiency. Moreover, the
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Act requires EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan within 24 months of disapproval unless
`the state has corrected the deficiency and EPA has approved the revision. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c).
`Once EPA approves a SIP or SIP revision, the state and any regulated person must
`24.
`comply with emissions standards and limitations contained in the SIP, and all such standards and
`limitations become enforceable as a matter of federal law by the EPA and citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 7413;
`7604(a), (f).
`If EPA fails to perform a non-discretionary duty, including acting on a proposed SIP or
`25.
`SIP revision by the Clean Air Act deadline, then the Act allows any person to bring suit to compel EPA
`to perform its duty. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2).
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`PM2.5 is a directly emitted pollutant and forms secondarily in the atmosphere by the
`26.
`precursor pollutants nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), ammonia, sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds
`(“VOC”). Ground-level ozone is formed by a reaction between NOx and volatile organic compounds in
`the presence of heat and sunlight. Unlike ozone in the upper atmosphere which is formed naturally and
`protects the Earth from ultraviolet radiation, ozone at ground level is primarily formed from
`anthropogenic pollution.
`Short-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution causes premature death, causes decreased lung
`27.
`function, exacerbates respiratory disease such as asthma, and causes increased hospital admissions.
`Long-term exposure causes development of asthma in children, causes decreased lung function growth
`in children, exacerbates respiratory disease such as asthma, increases the risk of death from
`cardiovascular disease, and increases the risk of death from heart attacks. Individuals particularly
`sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.
`Short-term exposure to ozone irritates lung tissue, decreases lung function, exacerbates
`28.
`respiratory disease such as asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), increases
`susceptibility to respiratory infections such as pneumonia, all of which contribute to an increased
`likelihood of emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Short-term exposure to ozone also
`increases the risk of premature death, especially among older adults. Long-term exposure to ozone
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`causes asthma in children, decreases lung function, damages the airways, leads to development of
`COPD, and increases allergic responses.
`On July 18, 1997, the EPA established a 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 µg/m3 and an
`29.
`annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m3 after considering evidence from “numerous health studies
`demonstrating that serious health effects” occur from exposures to PM2.5. See 81 Fed. Reg. 6936
`(February 9, 2016); see also 62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (July 18, 1997); 40 C.F.R. § 50.7.
`On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the short-term 24-hour PM2.5 standard by
`30.
`lowering it to 35 µg/m3. 70 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006); 40 C.F.R § 50.13.
`Effective March 18, 2013, the EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard by
`31.
`lowering the level from 15 to 12 µg/m3 while retaining the secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the level
`of 15.0 µg/m3. 78 Fed. Reg. 3086 (January 15, 2013); 40 C.F.R. § 50.18.
`EPA classified the South Coast Air Basin as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997
`32.
`PM2.5 standards, a serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, and a serious
`nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
`On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone standard to replace the less
`33.
`stringent 1-hour ozone standard. 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997); 40 C.F.R. § 50.9(b) (2003).
`In 2008, EPA completed a review of the 8-hour ozone standard and found it necessary to
`34.
`lower the ambient concentration of ozone to 0.075 parts per million as the 2008 Standard. 73 Fed. Reg.
`16436 (March. 27, 2008); 40 C.F.R. § 50.15. The EPA based this decision on its findings that “(1) the
`strong body of clinical evidence in healthy people at exposure levels of 0.080 and above of lung function
`decrements, respiratory symptoms, pulmonary inflammation, and other medically significant airway
`responses, as well as some indication of lung function decrements and respiratory symptoms at lower
`levels; (2) the substantial body of clinical and epidemiological evidence indicating that people with
`asthma are likely to experience larger and more serious effects than healthy people; and (3) the body of
`epidemiological evidence indicating associations are observed for a wide range of serious health effects,
`including respiratory emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and premature mortality, at and
`below 0.080 ppm.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 16476.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On October 26, 2015, EPA revised “the level of the standard to 0.070 ppm to provide
`35.
`increased public health protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures.
`80 Fed. Reg. 65292, 65294 (Oct. 26, 2015); 40 C.F.R. § 50.19.
`EPA classified the South Coast Air Basin as an extreme nonattainment area for the 2008
`36.
`8-hour ozone standard and an extreme nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Failure to Perform a Non-Discretionary Duty to Act on the Innovative Clean Transit Regulation
`(42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2))
`
`37.
`
`CCAEJ re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-
`
`36.
`
`On December 18, 2018, the California Air Resources Board adopted the ICT Regulation.
`38.
`According to the Board, the ICT regulation would result in thirty avoided deaths in the
`39.
`South Coast Air Basin and would reduce PM2.5 and oxides of nitrogen emissions from buses to zero by
`2045.
`
`On February 12, 2020, the Board submitted the ICT regulation to EPA for inclusion in
`40.
`the State Implementation Plan.
`The ICT regulation became complete by operation of law on August 13, 2020.
`41.
`42.
`EPA has a mandatory duty to act on the 2018 PM2.5 Plan no later than August 13, 2021.
`42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2).
`By failing to act on the ICT regulation, EPA has violated and continues to violate its
`43.
`nondiscretionary duty to act on the ICT regulation pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k)(2), 42
`U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2).
`This Clean Air Act violation constitutes a “failure of the Administrator to perform any act
`44.
`or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator” within the meaning of the
`Act’s citizen suit provision. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). EPA’s violation of the Act is ongoing and will
`continue unless remedied by this Court.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04191-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/19/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant the following relief:
`DECLARE that the Defendants violated the Clean Air Act by failing to act on the ICT
`A.
`regulation;
`ISSUE preliminary and permanent injunctions directing the Defendants to finalize action
`on the ICT regulation;
`RETAIN jurisdiction over this matter until such time as the Defendants have complied with
`their nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act;
`AWARD to Plaintiff its costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney and expert witness
`fees; and
`GRANT such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`LAW OFFICES OF BRENT J. NEWELL
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brent J. Newell
`Brent J. Newell
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`CENTER FOR COMMUITY ACTION AND
`ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket