Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles v. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY-LOS ANGELES;
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL; COMMUNITIES FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
Petitioners,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS,
Respondents-Intervenors.
No. 12-70079
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Argued and Submitted October 22, 2014
Pasadena, California
FILED
JUN 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit
Judges.
1. EPA’s approval of the enforceable commitment wasn’t arbitrary and
capricious. EPA reasonably applied its three-part test for evaluating such
commitments in concluding that: (1) the commitment was sufficiently limited
because it addressed reductions of about 10% for three pollutants, which is roughly
within the range EPA has historically accepted; (2) the state was capable of
fulfilling the commitment based on a number of ongoing and yet-to-be-quantified
measures; and (3) the commitment’s two-and-a-half-year duration was reasonable,
given that the state had already launched many emissions-reduction measures. See
76 Fed. Reg. 41,562, 41,575–77 (July 14, 2011); 76 Fed. Reg. 69,928, 69,944–45
(Nov. 9, 2011).
2. The commitment was sufficiently enforceable because it “require[s]
California to meet specific reductions by specific deadlines,” rather than merely
setting forth “aspirational, unenforceable goals.” See Comm. for a Better Arvin v.
EPA, Nos. 11-73924, 12-71332, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 2384556, at *8 (9th Cir.
May 20, 2015).

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
3. The state implementation plan doesn’t impermissibly ignore pollution in
near-highway areas because the monitoring guidelines explicitly specify that states
generally need not monitor “microscale” or “middle scale” areas, which include
“traffic corridors” and areas “along traffic corridors.” 40 C.F.R. Pt. 58, App. D,
§ 4.7.1(c)(1)–(2).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --