Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`Jonathan Evans (Cal. Bar #247376)
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Phone: 510-844-7100 x318
`Fax: 510-844-7150
`email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and
`Center for Environmental Health
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and,
`CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL S. REGAN,
`
`in his official capacity as Administrator of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency,
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No.
`)
`) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`)
`) (Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et. seq.)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and CENTER FOR
`
`1.
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (collectively “Environmental Groups”) challenge the failure of
`
`Defendant MICHAEL S. REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States
`
`28
`
`Complaint
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) to perform mandatory duties required by the Clean Air
`
`Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q. Specifically, the Clean Air Act establishes mandatory deadlines
`
`for EPA to complete a thorough review of the secondary National Ambient Air Quality
`
`Standards (NAAQS) for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), and Particulate Matter
`
`(PM), to make such revisions to these NAAQS as may be appropriate, to promulgate such new
`
`NAAQS as may be appropriate, and to publish notice of such actions in the Federal Register
`
`every five years. EPA has failed to meet these deadlines. The Environmental Groups thus bring
`
`this action to ensure that they and their members and others who breathe harmful air pollution in
`
`communities around the nation and appreciate ecosystems damaged by harmful air pollution will
`
`enjoy the up-to-date scientific analysis and air quality standards that Congress intended them to
`
`have. Accordingly, Plaintiffs THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and THE
`
`CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH bring this action against Defendant MICHAEL
`
`S. REGAN, in his official capacity as EPA Administrator, to compel EPA to perform these
`
`mandatory duties.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`17
`
`2.
`
`This case is a Clean Air Act citizen suit. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)
`
`(jurisdiction for citizen suits for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty required by the
`
`Clean Air Act).
`
`21
`
`3.
`
`An actual controversy exists between the parties. This case does not concern federal
`
`taxes, is not a proceeding under 11 U.S.C. §§ 505 or 1146, and does not involve the Tariff Act of
`
`1930. Thus, this Court has authority to order the declaratory relief requested under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 2
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`2201. If the Court orders declaratory relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2202 authorizes this Court to issue
`
`injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`III. NOTICE
`
`4.
`
`On February 2, 2022, the Environmental Groups mailed to EPA by certified mail, return
`
`receipt requested, written notice of intent to sue regarding the violations alleged in this
`
`Complaint. EPA received this notice of intent to sue letter no later than February 8, 2022. More
`
`than sixty days have passed since EPA received this “notice of intent to sue” letter. EPA has not
`
`remedied the violations alleged in this Complaint. Therefore, a present and actual controversy
`
`10
`
`exists.
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`IV. VENUE
`
`13
`
`5.
`
`Defendant EPA resides in this judicial district. EPA Region 9 is headquartered in San
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Francisco. This civil action is brought against an officer of the United States acting in his
`
`official capacity. In addition, Plaintiff Center for Environmental Health headquartered in
`
`Oakland, California and thus resides in this judicial district. Therefore, venue is proper in this
`
`Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`6.
`
`V. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`EPA Region 9 is headquartered in San Francisco. Accordingly, assignment to the San
`
`Francisco Division or the Oakland Division is proper pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c) and (d).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`VI. PARTIES
`
`COMPLAINT – 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff the CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY is a non-profit 501(c)(3)
`
`corporation incorporated in California. The Center for Biological Diversity has over 89,000
`
`members throughout the United States and the world. The Center for Biological Diversity’s
`
`mission is to ensure the preservation, protection, and restoration of biodiversity, native species,
`
`ecosystems, public lands and waters, and public health through science, policy, and
`
`environmental law. Based on the understanding that the health and vigor of human societies and
`
`the integrity and wildness of the natural environment are closely linked, the Center for
`
`Biological Diversity is working to secure a future for animals and plants hovering on the brink of
`
`extinction, for the ecosystems they need to survive, and for a healthy, livable future for all of us.
`
`10
`
`8.
`
`The Center for Biological Diversity and its members include individuals with varying
`
`interests in public health, wildlife species and their habitat ranging from scientific, professional,
`
`and educational to recreational, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual. Further, the Center for Biological
`
`Diversity’s members enjoy, on an ongoing basis, the biological, scientific, research, educational,
`
`conservation, recreational, and aesthetic values of the regions inhabited by these species,
`
`including the regions at issue in this action. The Center for Biological Diversity’s members
`
`observe and study native species and their habitat, and derive professional, scientific,
`
`educational, recreational, aesthetic, inspirational, and other benefits from these activities and
`
`have an interest in preserving the possibility of such activities in the future. The Center for
`
`Biological Diversity and its members have participated in efforts to protect and preserve public
`
`health and natural areas, including the habitat essential to the continued survival of native
`
`species, and to address threats to the continued existence of these species, including the threats
`
`posed by air pollution and other contaminants.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff the CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH is an Oakland, California
`
`based nonprofit organization that helps protect the public from toxic chemicals and promotes
`
`business products and practices that are safe for public health and the environment. The Center
`
`for Environmental Health works in pursuit of a world in which all people live, work, learn, and
`
`play in healthy environments.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs’ members live, work, recreate, travel and engage in other activities throughout
`
`the areas at issue in this complaint and will continue to do so on a regular basis. Pollution in the
`
`affected areas threatens and damages, and will continue to threaten and damage, the health and
`
`welfare of Plaintiffs’ members as well as their ability to engage in and enjoy their other
`
`activities. Pollution diminishes Plaintiff’s members’ ability to enjoy the aesthetic qualities and
`
`recreational opportunities of the affected area. For example, Plaintiffs’ have a member who
`
`frequently observes the whooping crane. NOx and SOx emissions harm the aquatic ecosystems
`
`the whooping crane needs to survive. Plaintiffs also have members who enjoy observing flora
`
`that can be adversely affected by NOx deposition that alters the ability of native species to
`
`compete with non-native competitors or which can be adversely affected by SOx or PM
`
`16
`
`pollution.
`
`11.
`
`EPA’s failure to timely perform the mandatory duties described herein also adversely
`
`affects Plaintiffs, as well as their members, by depriving them of procedural protection and
`
`opportunities, as well as information that they are entitled to under the Clean Air Act. The
`
`failure of EPA to perform the mandatory duties also creates uncertainty for Plaintiffs’ members
`
`as to whether they are exposed to excess air pollution.
`
`12.
`
`The above injuries will continue until the Court grants the relief requested herein.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 5
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 6 of 16
`
`13.
`
`Defendant MICHAEL S. REGAN is the Administrator of the EPA. In that role
`
`Administrator Regan has been charged by Congress with the duty to administer the Clean Air
`
`Act, including the mandatory duties at issue in this case. Administrator Regan is also charged
`
`with overseeing all EPA regional offices including EPA Region 9, which is headquartered in San
`
`Francisco.
`
`
`
`VII. LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`14.
`
`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. 1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 1,1, 1970 U.S.
`
`Code Cong. & Admin. News 5356, 5356. To promote this, the Act requires EPA to set National
`
`Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a). National Ambient
`
`Air Quality Standards establish maximum allowable concentrations in the air of such pollutants.
`
`15.
`
`Specifically, Section 108 of the CAA requires EPA to identify pollutants that “may
`
`reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to issue air quality criteria
`
`for those pollutants. 42 U.S.C. § 7408. Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7409)
`
`requires EPA to promulgate secondary NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be
`
`anticipated to endanger … welfare”. 42 U.S.C. § 7408. “[E]ffects on welfare include[], but [are]
`
`not limited to effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife,
`
`weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to
`
`transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
`
`whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants.” 42
`
`U.S.C. § 7602(h).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 6
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 7 of 16
`
`16.
`
`Section 109(d)(1) further requires that “at five year intervals” EPA “shall complete a
`
`thorough review of the criteria published under [section 108] and the national ambient air quality
`
`standards promulgated under this section and shall make such revisions in such criteria and
`
`standards and promulgate such new standards as may be appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(1).
`
`Each time it goes through this review process, EPA must publish in the Federal Register its
`
`revision decision concerning the air quality criteria and NAAQS for the pollutant at issue
`
`(including any new or revised NAAQS resulting from that review), as well as notice of the
`
`issuance of any revised air quality criteria for that pollutant. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7408(d), 7607(d).
`
`17. Courts have held that the duties prescribed by § 109(d)(1) are nondiscretionary. For
`
`example, the Second Circuit rejected an argument that § 109(d)(1) merely imposed a duty to
`
`avoid unreasonable delay, finding that the provision instead established a nondiscretionary duty:
`
`“when, as here, a statute sets forth a bright-line rule for agency action, . . . there is no room for
`
`debate -- Congress has prescribed a categorical mandate that deprives EPA of all discretion over
`
`the timing of its work.” American Lung Association v. Reilly, 962 F.2d 258, 263 (2d Cir. 1992)
`
`(emphasis added). The D.C. Circuit subsequently “agree[d]” with this Second Circuit ruling.
`
`American Trucking Assns. v. United States EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1999),
`
`rehearing granted in part on other grounds, denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), rev'd in
`
`part on other grounds, aff'd in part sub nom. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., 531 U.S.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`457 (2001).
`
`18. Moreover, EPA’s own interpretation of § 109(d)(1) acknowledges the nondiscretionary
`
`nature of the deadline. For example, with respect to the NAAQS for NO2, EPA long ago
`
`recognized that section 109(d)(1) “requires EPA to review the scientific basis of existing
`
`National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.” 45 Fed. Reg. 77,768 (Nov.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 8 of 16
`
`24, 1980). EPA reaffirmed this straightforward reading with respect to the NAAQS for ozone:
`
`“Under section 109(d)(1) of the Act, EPA is required to perform a review of the ozone NAAQS
`
`every five years.” 61 Fed. Reg. 19,195 (May 1, 1996). Thus, EPA has interpreted 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7409(d)(1) to impose a mandatory duty.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`NITROGEN OXIDES
`
`VIII. FACTS
`
`19.
`
`Nitrogen oxides (NOx) such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are highly reactive gases emitted
`
`primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels in mobile and stationary sources.
`
`20. NOx emissions contribute to a variety of public health problems. NOx emissions are a
`
`precursor of ground-level ozone and particulate matter pollution. NOx emissions also play a role
`
`in the accumulation of excess nitrates in drinking water, the eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems
`
`and nitrification of soils, global climate change, increases in toxic pollutant levels, and the
`
`depletion of the ozone layer. 70 Fed. Reg. 8888-89 (Feb. 23, 2005).
`
`21.
`
`EPA claims that NO2 accounts for the vast majority of NOx in the atmosphere, and has
`
`used this claim as a justification to use NO2 as a surrogate for NOx since first promulgating the
`
`NAAQS for NO2 in 1971. See 36 Fed. Reg. 8,186.
`
`22.
`
`EPA last reviewed the secondary NOx NAAQS no later than June 4, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`20,218 (Apr. 3, 2012).
`
`23.
`
`EPA last reviewed the air quality criteria document, which EPA now calls an integrated
`
`science assessment (ISA), for NOx no later than October 19, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 66,327 (Oct. 19,
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 8
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 9 of 16
`
`2020); Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate
`
`Matter – Ecological Criteria, October 2020 (2020 ISA).
`
`23.
`
`The 2020 ISA demonstrates that the welfare impacts from NOx are worse than was
`
`known when EPA reviewed the NAAQS in 2012.
`
`24.
`
`For example, for the 2012 secondary NAAQS review, the science was sufficient to infer
`
`a likely causal relationship between acidifying nitrogen deposition and the alteration of soil
`
`biogeochemistry in terrestrial ecosystems. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen
`
`and Sulfur – Ecological Criteria, December 2008 (2008 ISA) at 3-109. However, the 2020 ISA
`
`solidifies this finding such that EPA can definitively say there is a causal relationship between
`
`nitrogen deposition and the alteration of soil biogeochemistry in terrestrial ecosystems. 2020 ISA
`
`at 4-1. New studies confirm that nitrogen depositions become rapidly incorporated into
`
`ecosystems as litter and recalcitrant organic matter in the soil. 2020 ISA at 4-7.
`
`25. Moreover, for the 2012 secondary NAAQS review, the science was inadequate to infer a
`
`relationship between nitrogen deposition and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. In the
`
`2020 ISA, however, the science now suggests that there is a causal relationship between nitrogen
`
`depositions and increased productivity in terrestrial ecosystems, which can alter the composition
`
`and decrease diversity in terrestrial ecosystems. 2020 ISA at IS-46. These suggestions of a causal
`
`relationship are very important. NAAQS setting is not like a tort case where EPA must prove
`
`causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, Congress’ directive that EPA provide an
`
`adequate margin of safety is meant to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive
`
`scientific and technical information. 2020 ISA at xlix. This new science, however, provides no
`
`protection to the American public until EPA uses the science to revise the NAAQS.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 10 of 16
`
`26. More than five years has passed since EPA completed its last review and determination
`
`of the need for revision of the secondary NOx NAAQS. According to the clear statutory
`
`deadlines, such a review should have been completed by no later than June 4, 2017. Thus, EPA’s
`
`ongoing failure to complete this review and to make the necessary revisions to the NAAQS is
`
`contrary to Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(1).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`SULFUR DIOXIDE
`
`27.
`
`Sulfur Oxides (SOx) such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) are a group of gases formed primarily
`
`from the combustion of fossil fuel containing sulfur, such as coal. SOx are also released during
`
`the manufacture of metals and in some oil refining processes.
`
`28.
`
`SOx emissions have a variety of negative effects on human health. SOx pollution
`
`contributes to respiratory problems, particularly for children and the elderly, and aggravates
`
`existing heart and lung diseases. SOx emitted over a short period can be harmful to asthmatics.
`
`SOx also contribute to the formation of acid rain, which damages trees, crops, historic buildings,
`
`and monuments and alters the acidity of both soils and water bodies. In addition, because SOx
`
`emissions may be transmitted long distances, they contribute to visibility impairment problems
`
`in many national parks. See EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “SO2 – How
`
`Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe” (Nov. 2000), available at
`
`http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html.
`
`29.
`
`SO2 is the sulfur oxide that EPA has used as the indicator for regulation of all SOx
`
`emissions since first promulgating NAAQS for SO2 in 1971. See 36 Fed. Reg. 8186.
`
`30.
`
`The current secondary NAAQS for SO2 is 0.5 part-per-million, as a 3-hour average, not
`
`to be exceeded more than once per year. 77 Fed. Reg. 20,281 (Apr. 3, 2012).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 10
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 11 of 16
`
`31.
`
`Despite the clear statutory language requiring EPA to review and update the NAAQS for
`
`all regulated pollutants every five years, it has been nearly ten years since EPA last completed
`
`such a review to update the secondary NAAQS for SOx. During this time, no review of the
`
`secondary NAAQS for SOx has been completed.
`
`32.
`
`EPA last reviewed the secondary NAAQS for SOx no later than June 4, 2012. 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 20,218 (Apr. 3, 2012). EPA last reviewed the air quality criteria document, which EPA
`
`now calls an integrated science assessment (ISA), for SOx no later than October 19, 2020. 85
`
`Fed. Reg. 66,327 (Oct. 19, 2020). More than five years has passed since EPA completed its last
`
`review of the secondary NAAQS for SOx. According to the clear statutory deadlines, such a
`
`review should have been completed by no later than June 4, 2017.
`
`33.
`
`According to EPA’s 2020 ISA, the science behind the adverse ecological impacts of SOx has
`
`become more certain since EPA’s last review. In the 2012 review of the secondary NAAQS for SOx,
`
`the science was inadequate to infer a causal relationship between sulfur deposition and changes in
`
`biota due to sulfide phototoxicity. In the 2020 ISA, the science now suggests that there is a causal
`
`relationship between sulfur deposition and changes in biota, which can alter growth, productivity,
`
`species physiology and richness, and biodiversity in wetland and freshwater ecosystems. 2020 ISA at
`
`IS-95.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`PARTICULATE MATTER
`
`34.
`
`Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of inhalable solid and liquid particles in the air, and
`
`there are separate standards for different particle types. PM is separated into PM10, particles with
`
`diameters 10 micrometers or smaller, and PM2.5, particles with diameters 2.5 micrometers and
`
`smaller, which are the type that pose the greatest risk to health. “Particulate Matter (PM)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 12 of 16
`
`Pollution –Particulate Matter Basics” available at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-
`
`matter-pm-basics.
`
`35.
`
`Sources of PM2.5 emissions include industrial activities, motor vehicles, and fuel
`
`combustion. Particulate matter impairs visibility, harms sensitive ecosystems, and effects climate.
`
`36.
`
`The current secondary NAAQs for PM are a 3-year annual mean of 15 µg/m3, with the
`
`24-hour average PM2.5 and PM10 set at concentrations of 35 µg/m3 and 150 µg/m3. 78 Fed. Reg.
`
`3085, 3182 (Jan. 15, 2013).
`
`37. More than five years have passed since EPA last reviewed and revised the secondary
`
`NAAQS for PM. According to the clear statutory deadlines, such a review should have been
`
`completed by no later than March 18, 2018.
`
`38.
`
`In 2019, EPA published an integrated science assessment regarding the health and
`
`welfare impacts of PM. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, December 2019
`
`(2019 ISA). The 2019 ISA supports and strengthens previous findings regarding the causal
`
`relationship between PM and climate impacts, specifically how PM affects cloud processes.
`
`2019 ISA at 13-2.
`
`39.
`
`The 2020 ISA reaffirms the ecological findings EPA made in its last review. In a
`
`previous ISA, the science suggested that PM deposition was likely to alter photosynthesis,
`
`transpiration, and growth. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, December 2009
`
`(2009 ISA). The 2020 ISA supports these findings. 2020 ISA at IS-99.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 12
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 13 of 16
`
`IX. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`CLAIM ONE
`
`(CAA Sections 304(a)(2) and 109(d)(1) for NOx)
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Each allegation set forth in the complaint is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`41.
`
`The deadline under Clean Air Act § 109(d)(1) for Defendant to complete another cycle of
`
`review, revision, and promulgation actions with respect to NOx expired more than five years ago.
`
`Nonetheless, Defendant has failed to perform those actions.
`
`42.
`
`Specifically, EPA last reviewed the secondary NOx NAAQS no later than June 4, 2012.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 20,218 (April 3, 2012).
`
`43.
`
`Thus, EPA has a mandatory duty to complete a thorough review and revise the existing
`
`NAAQS and promulgate new NAAQS as appropriate and publish notice of such actions by no
`
`later than June 4, 2017. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409(d), 7607(d).
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has failed to do so.
`
`45. Defendant’s failure to perform each of the above actions constitutes a failure to perform
`
`an act or duty (or acts or duties) that are not discretionary with Defendant within the meaning of
`
`Clean Air Act § 304(a)(2). 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 13
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 14 of 16
`
`CLAIM TWO
`
`(CAA Sections 304(a)(2) and 109(d)(1) for SOx)
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Each allegation set forth in the complaint is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`47.
`
`The deadline under Clean Air Act § 109(d)(1) for Defendant to complete another cycle of
`
`review, revision, and promulgation actions with respect to SOx expired more than five years ago.
`
`Nonetheless, Defendant has failed to perform those actions.
`
`48.
`
`Specifically, EPA last reviewed the secondary SOx NAAQS no later than June 4, 2012. 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 20218 (April 3, 2012).
`
`49.
`
`Thus, EPA has a mandatory duty to complete a thorough review of the NAAQS and
`
`promulgate new NAAQS for SOx as appropriate and publish notice of such actions by no later
`
`than June 4, 2017. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409(d), 7607(d).
`
`50.
`
`Defendant has failed to do so.
`
`51. Defendant’s failure to perform each of the above actions constitutes a failure to perform
`
`an act or duty (or acts or duties) that are not discretionary with Defendant within the meaning of
`
`Clean Air Act § 304(a)(2). 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`///
`
`18
`
`///
`
`19
`
`///
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 14
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 15 of 16
`
`CLAIM THREE
`
`(CAA Sections 304(a)(2) and 109(d)(1) for PM)
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Each allegation set forth in the complaint is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`53.
`
`The deadline under § 109(d)(1) for Defendant to complete another cycle of review,
`
`revision, and promulgation actions with respect to PM expired more than five years ago.
`
`Nonetheless, Defendant has failed to perform those actions.
`
`54.
`
`Specifically, EPA last completely reviewed the secondary PM NAAQS no later than
`
`March 18, 2013. 78 Fed. Reg. 3085 (Jan. 15, 2013).1
`
`55.
`
`Thus, EPA has a mandatory duty to complete a thorough review of the NAAQS and
`
`revise the NAAQS and promulgate new NAAQS for PM as appropriate and publish notice of
`
`such actions by no later than March 18, 2018. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409(d), 7607(d).
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has failed to do so.
`
`57. Defendant’s failure to perform each of the above actions constitutes a failure to perform
`
`an act or duty (or acts or duties) that are not discretionary with Defendant within the meaning of
`
`Clean Air Act § 304(a)(2). 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`///
`
`18
`
`///
`
`19
`
`///
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 EPA did conclude a partial review of the secondary PM NAAQS on December 18, 2020. See
`85 Fed. Reg. 82,684 (Dec. 18, 2020).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 15
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-02285-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
`
`A.
`
`Declare that the Administrator is in violation of the Clean Air Act with regard to his
`
`failure to perform the mandatory duties listed above;
`
`B.
`
`Issue a mandatory injunction requiring the Administrator to perform his mandatory duties
`
`listed above by certain dates;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Retain jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Court’s order;
`
`Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees;
`
`and;
`
`10
`
`E.
`
`Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 13, 2022
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Jonathan Evans
`Jonathan Evans (Cal. Bar #247376)
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway
`Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Phone: 510-844-7100 x318
`Fax: 510-844-7150
`email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`COMPLAINT – 16
`
`
`