Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League et al v. Mccarthy

Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment On Remedy

D.D.C.September 26, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ) LEAGUE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-CV-00364-CRC ) v. ) ) GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) EPA’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”), moves this Court for summary judgment in this matter on the issue of remedy. Specifically, EPA asks that the Court enter judgment requiring EPA to complete its obligations under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2)(A) for the 13 categories of emission sources at issue in this matter pursuant to the attached schedule. The reasons for this request are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Eileen T. McDonough United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section Of Counsel P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 JAN TIERNEY eileen.mcdonough@usdoj.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 514-3126 Office of General Counsel ARN: MC-2344A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2 2 Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Fabric Printing 1/17/2018 1/15/2019 Metal Furniture 2/15/2018 2/12/2019 Large Appliances 3/15/2018 3/12/2019 Leather Finishing Operations 3/22/2018 3/19/2019 Wood Building Products 4/17/2018 6/11/2019 Friction Products Manufacturing 7/31/2018 7/25/2019 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 1/22/2019 3/17/2020 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 9/17/2019 9/9/2020 Taconite Iron Ore Processing 10/3/2019 10/27/2020 Lime Manufacturing 10/29/2019 12/15/2020 Iron and Steel Foundries 12/12/2019 4/6/2021 Plywood and Composite Wood Products 1/28/2020 5/20/2021 Misc. Coating Manufacturing 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ) LEAGUE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-CV-00364-CRC ) v. ) ) GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) EPA’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. EPA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, (“EPA”) does not dispute the material facts set forth in Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue (Aug. 12, 2016), ECF 17. II. EPA’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS- MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. EPA did not complete its obligations pursuant to the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6), (f)(2)(A), by the deadlines established by that section for the 13 source categories identified in Table 1 below. Answer, ¶¶ 31-43. ECF 14. 2. EPA’s Sector Policies and Programs Division (“SPPD”) within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for the development of regulations, policy, and guidance associated with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”) under CAA section 7412, which addresses the control of hazardous Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 5 2 air pollutants from stationary sources. See Declaration of Panagiotis E. Tsirigotis, Director of SPPD, ¶ 2-4 (Sept. 26, 2016) (“Tsirigotis Decl.”). 3. Section 7412(d)(6) requires EPA to review, and revise as necessary, emission standards promulgated under section 7412(d) every eight years. This process is referred to as the “technology review.” Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 4. Section 7412(f)(2)(A) requires EPA, within eight years of the promulgation of standards under section 7412(d), to promulgate additional standards for each category or subcategory where “required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health” or to prevent “an adverse environmental effect,” based on the consideration of specified factors. This process is referred to as the “residual risk review.” Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 4. EPA generally performs the first technology review for each category or subcategory at the same time as the residual risk review. The technology and residual risk reviews are jointly referred to as the “risk and technology review” or “RTR.” Id. 4. The best estimate of the minimum reasonable time for completion of the risk and technology reviews and promulgation of additional standards, if needed, for these 13 source categories is set forth in the following table. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 8. (remainder of page left blank) Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 5 3 Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Fabric Printing 1/17/2018 1/15/2019 Metal Furniture 2/15/2018 2/12/2019 Large Appliances 3/15/2018 3/12/2019 Leather Finishing Operations 3/22/2018 3/19/2019 Wood Building Products 4/17/2018 6/11/2019 Friction Products Manufacturing 7/31/2018 7/25/2019 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 1/22/2019 3/17/2020 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 9/17/2019 9/9/2020 Taconite Iron Ore Processing 10/3/2019 10/27/2020 Lime Manufacturing 10/29/2019 12/15/2020 Iron and Steel Foundries 12/12/2019 4/6/2021 Plywood and Composite Wood Products 1/28/2020 5/20/2021 Misc. Coating Manufacturing 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 5. This schedule is based on EPA’s experience in finalizing RTR projects for 31 source categories since 2012. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 9. During this time, EPA has not completed an RTR in less than 2.5 years from the project start date. Id. ¶ 21 and Attachment 1 to Declaration (Table showing timelines for these 30 RTR projects). 6. This schedule also takes into account the 35 other RTR rulemakings in which EPA is currently engaged or will begin shortly. Id. ¶ 7 & n.1.  EPA is working on the RTR rulemakings for two source categories, Coke Ovens and Large Municipal Waste Combustors.  EPA is subject to court-ordered schedules to complete RTR rulemakings for four source categories.  The consent decree entered on October 8, 2015, in Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Civ. Act. No. 13-1369 (RDM), ECF 32, requires EPA to complete an RTR rulemaking for the Publicly Owned Treatment works category. EPA must sign a proposed rule by December 8, 2016, and sign Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 5 4 a final rule by October 16, 2017. Id. ¶ 2.  The consent decree entered on September 26, 2011, in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv-00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.), ECF 96, requires EPA to complete an RTR action for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category. EPA must sign a proposed rule by June 15, 2017, and a final rule by June 15, 2018. Id. ¶ 28.  The order issued on March 15, 2016, in Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No: 3:15-cv-01165-HSG, 2016 WL 1055120 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2016), requires EPA to complete RTR actions for the Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources source category and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing source category by October 1, 2017.  Cross-motions for summary judgment to establish a schedule for proposing and issuing final RTR actions for 20 additional source categories are pending in California Communities Against Toxics v. McCarthy, Case No. 1:15-cv-00512-TSC (D.D.C.). Plaintiffs have requested that the court order EPA to complete ten final RTR rules within one year of the date of a court order and the remaining ten rules within two years of that date. EPA has requested that the Court impose a staggered schedule that will require that all final RTR actions be completed by 2021.1  Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of different parties, have filed another action seeking to establish a schedule by which EPA must complete RTR actions for another nine source 1 For the Court’s convenience, the proposed orders submitted by Plaintiffs and EPA in that matter are attached as Exhibits D and E. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 5 5 categories. Community In-Power & Development Ass’n v. McCarthy, Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ (D.D.C.). 7. This schedule is based on an assessment of the circumstances pertaining to each category or subcategory, as currently known to the Agency. For example, in developing the schedule, EPA considered the amount of additional data collection or testing that would be required for each category or subcategory in evaluating the time that would be required. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 14(b)-(d). 8. If EPA is required to act on a shorter schedule, the Agency would be forced to take procedural or analytical shortcuts that could jeopardize both the soundness of the regulatory actions and their legal defensibility. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 7. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Eileen T. McDonough United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section Of Counsel P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 JAN TIERNEY eileen.mcdonough@usdoj.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 514-3126 Office of General Counsel ARN: MC-2344A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ) LEAGUE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-CV-00364-CRC ) v. ) ) GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER Upon consideration of the cross-motion for summary judgment on remedy filed by Defendant Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”), and the memoranda and exhibits in support of and in opposition thereto, it is hereby ordered that EPA’s cross-motion is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied to the extent that it requests the Court to impose a specific remedy. EPA is to complete its obligations under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2)(A), pursuant to the attached schedule for the 13 source categories identified therein. ________________________________ HON. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: ____________________ Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-2 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2 2 Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Fabric Printing 1/17/2018 1/15/2019 Metal Furniture 2/15/2018 2/12/2019 Large Appliances 3/15/2018 3/12/2019 Leather Finishing Operations 3/22/2018 3/19/2019 Wood Building Products 4/17/2018 6/11/2019 Friction Products Manufacturing 7/31/2018 7/25/2019 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 1/22/2019 3/17/2020 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 9/17/2019 9/9/2020 Taconite Iron Ore Processing 10/3/2019 10/27/2020 Lime Manufacturing 10/29/2019 12/15/2020 Iron and Steel Foundries 12/12/2019 4/6/2021 Plywood and Composite Wood Products 1/28/2020 5/20/2021 Misc. Coating Manufacturing 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-2 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ) LEAGUE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-CV-00364-CRC ) v. ) ) GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) EPA’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”), files this opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Clean Wisconsin, Midwest Environmental Defense Center, and Sierra Club (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (ECF 17) and concurrently cross-moves for summary judgment as to remedy. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under section 112(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), to, within eight years of initial promulgation, “review, and revise as necessary” the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (“NESHAPs”) for 13 source categories promulgated under section 112(d). Compl. ¶ 1. Section 7412(d)(6) requires EPA to consider “developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.” This process, including the promulgation of any revised standards, is referred to herein as “the technology review.” Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 25 2 Plaintiffs further allege that EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under CAA section 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2), for the same 21 source categories. Compl. ¶ 1. Section 7412(f)(2)(A) requires EPA to, within eight years of initial promulgation of NESHAPs, review the standards to evaluate whether: (1) they provide “an ample margin of safety to protect public health;” and (2) whether they will prevent an “adverse environmental effect,” based on consideration of specified factors. Based on this review, EPA must either: (1) promulgate “residual risk” standards under section 7412(f)(2); or (2) determine that residual risk standards are not necessary to protect human health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent an adverse environmental effect under section 7412(f)(2). This process, including the promulgation of any revised standards, is referred to herein as “the residual risk review.” EPA does not dispute that it has not yet completed its duty to conduct the technology and residual risk reviews pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2) for the 13 categories identified in Table A below. See infra at 10; Answer, ¶¶ 31-43. ECF 14. Therefore, the sole issue before the Court is the remedy, i.e., what schedule the Court should impose on EPA to complete the required technology and residual risk reviews. Plaintiffs ask this Court to impose an unreasonable schedule on the Agency that would direct EPA to complete both the technology and residual risk review rulemakings for all 13 categories within 24 months of the date of the Court’s final order on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 18-19 (“Pltfs. Memo”). ECF 17. Plaintiffs urge the court to require EPA to sign notices of proposed rulemakings for both technology and residual risk reviews for seven categories within eight months after the order, and to sign notices of final rulemakings for those Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 25 3 categories four months later. For the remaining six categories, Plaintiffs ask that EPA be required to sign notices of proposed rulemakings within 20 months after the order and sign final notices four months later. Id. For the reasons explained below, however, Plaintiffs’ schedule does not allow time for EPA to gather necessary information and would undercut the notice and comment process required for all rules by severely limiting, and possibly even eliminating, EPA’s ability to consider any new information received during the comment period. EPA proposes an alternate schedule that takes into account the relative complexity of the various rulemakings and the importance of using accurate information and giving proper consideration to new data and information submitted by the public during the comment period for each rule. Plaintiffs dismissively refer to all the rulemakings as “straightforward,” Pltfs. Memo. at 19, thereby ignoring the technical complexity of the needed analyses and the differences between source categories. After evaluating the 13 source categories, EPA assigned each a factor from 1 to 3 based on the relative complexity of conducting the residual risk review and the technology review for that category. For each source category, the Agency also considered the amount of work performed to date; the expected data needs; the number of facilities in each category; the available resources; and the need to balance the workload between the different work teams with the appropriate expertise to address the various source categories. Declaration of Panagiotis E. Tsirigotis, Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, ¶ 11 (Sept. 26, 2016) (“Tsirigotis Decl.”). Exhibit A. The Tsirigotis Declaration, ¶ 8, identifies specific dates for signature of a proposed and final rule addressing both the technology and residual risk reviews for each source category. Below is a summary of this schedule. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 25 4 Number of Named Categories Signature of proposed rule Signature of final rule 6 Staggered between January 2018 and July 20181 Staggered between January 2019 and July 2019 5 Staggered between January 2019 and December 2019 Staggered between July 2019 and April 2021 2 Staggered between January 2020 and June 2020 Staggered between May 2021 and October 2021 Thus, the Agency is proposing a schedule of approximately five years from the date of this cross-motion to complete, for 13 source categories, both the technology and residual risk reviews, including the promulgation of revised standards where appropriate. As explained below, this amount of time is necessary to ensure that the final rules for both reviews will be based on the collection of the necessary information and data; adequate public participation; and a thorough examination of the issues, including proper consideration of the public comments, along with any new data or information submitted. EPA must prepare the proposed and final rules and the respective preambles. For the final rule, EPA must also prepare a reasoned response to the substantive comments. If the Court were to order the truncated schedule proposed by Plaintiffs, EPA would have to significantly scale back the scope of its analyses and scale back or potentially eliminate data collection, which is a time-consuming process, for many source categories. In addition, the exceedingly short period between issuing the proposed and final rule would allow EPA to provide only a cursory consideration of comments received during the comment period. These strictures would undermine the effectiveness of EPA’s review to determine whether the existing standards are sufficient or 1 Staggering deadlines allows the Agency to avoid the bottlenecks that can arise if a number of rules are delivered for final management review at the same time. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 25 5 whether additional rulemaking is needed because unacceptable risks to public health remain. It would also threaten the quality of any such rulemakings.2 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The CAA is intended to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources. Hazardous air pollutants, or “HAPs,” are “pollutants which present, or may present, . . . a threat of adverse human health effects . . . or adverse environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(2). Prior to the 1990 Amendments, the CAA required EPA to regulate HAPs on the basis of risk. H.R. Rep. No. 101-490 at 150-51, 322, reprinted in 2 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (“Legislative History”) at 3174-75, 3346 (Comm. Print 1993). Dissatisfied with the pace and difficulties inherent in setting risk-based regulations, 2 Legislative History at 3346, Congress amended the CAA in 1990, establishing a two-stage approach--one technology-based and the other risk-based--for regulating HAP emissions. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(d) & (f); see Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 857-58 (D.C. Cir. 2001).3 2 As Mr. Tsirigotis explains, Decl. ¶ 11, EPA’s efforts to prepare a schedule in this matter were complicated by the fact that the Court is currently considering cross-motions for summary judgment on remedy to set a schedule for EPA to complete 20 RTR actions in California Communities Against Toxics v. McCarthy, Case No. 1:15-cv-00512-TSC (D.D.C.). If the decision on the pending motions imposes a much shorter schedule than requested by EPA in that matter, EPA will be required to reassess whether it can meet the schedule put forth in the present motion. If that occurs, EPA will promptly advise the Court and file a revised declaration. 3 In addition, Congress included a specific list of hazardous air pollutants for regulation under section 7412(b) of the CAA and authorized EPA to revise that list. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(1), (2). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 25 6 For the first stage, Congress required EPA to promulgate technology-based emission standards for categories of sources that emit the listed HAPs. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d). These source category emission standards are codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 63. The second stage, which is to be completed within eight years after section 7412(d) standards are promulgated, has two components:  The residual risk review, requiring EPA to determine whether residual risks remain that warrant more stringent standards to protect human health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent an “adverse environmental effect” and to promulgate such standards when necessary. Id. § 7412(f)(2)(A).  The technology review, requiring EPA to review developments in “processes, practices and control technology” for each source category and to revise the standards as necessary. Id. § U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6). The technology review must be repeated every 8 years. Id. EPA has typically performed both the residual risk and first technology review for each source category in a single rulemaking. The Agency refers to these combined reviews as the “risk and technology review,” or “RTR.” The RTR process for each source category is a rulemaking that must comply with the procedural requirements of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d). STANDARD OF REVIEW As noted, EPA does not dispute that it has not taken the required actions; the only dispute concerns remedy. Courts adjudicating similar disputes concerning the remedy for an agency’s failure to meet a statutory deadline commonly resolve such disputes through summary judgment. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46, 52 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Because defendant does not contest the issue of liability, the entry of summary judgment is appropriate, and it Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 25 7 remains only for the Court to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy.”) (citing cases). In exercising its equitable discretion to establish appropriate deadlines, this Court should consider the Agency’s budgetary and manpower constraints, EPA’s implementation of other mandatory duties, and EPA’s many competing obligations. Id. (citing Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 713 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT HAS EQUITABLE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE A REASONABLE SCHEDULE FOR THE AGENCY TO TAKE ACTION A district court has broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies such as a schedule for agency action. Weinberger v. Carlos Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-13 (1982); Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 14-cv-00643-JLH (E.D. Ark. Nov. 3, 2015) (adopting compliance schedule presented in EPA’s declaration after finding that the facts in the declaration supported the conclusion that the proposed schedule was “the most expeditious schedule that [EPA] could meet, given current resource and budgetary constraints.”) (quoting EPA Declaration) (attached as Exhibit B); Am. Lung Ass’n v. Browner, 884 F. Supp. 345, 347 (D. Ariz. 1994); see also Envtl. Def. Fund v. Thomas, 627 F. Supp. 566, 569-70 (D.D.C. 1986) (adopting compliance schedule proposed by EPA in a case where the Agency had failed to comply with a nondiscretionary statutory duty, after finding that EPA’s proposed schedule was “reasonable”); Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d at 58 (focusing on amount of time “necessary for the promulgation of workable regulations”). In a suit alleging violation of a Congressionally mandated duty, courts have recognized two types of circumstances that can make it infeasible for an agency to comply with a particular deadline: (1) the “budgetary” and “manpower demands” required are “beyond the agency’s capacity or would unduly jeopardize the implementation of other essential programs,” Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 25 8 and (2) an agency’s need to have more time to sufficiently evaluate complex technical issues. Train, 510 F.2d at 712-13. When an agency concludes that such constraints require an extension of the statutory deadline, it may so demonstrate to the district court. Id. In short, when an agency has missed a statutory deadline, the court should examine the relevant facts and circumstances and evaluate the time needed by the agency to take responsible and effective action that will achieve the results intended by Congress. See Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d at 58 (EPA should be allowed a reasonable period of time so that the Agency can promulgate “’workable regulations.’”) (quoting Sierra Club v. Thomas, 658 F. Supp. 165, 175 (N.D. Cal. 1987)). II. EPA’S PROPOSED ORDER PRESENTS THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS SCHEDULE THAT THE AGENCY REASONABLY CAN MEET UNDER CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES As explained in detail in the Tsirigotis Declaration, many steps are required to complete the 13 residual risk and technology reviews or RTRs at issue here.4 Id. ¶¶ 10-20. Since 2012, EPA has finalized RTR projects covering 31 source categories. Id. ¶ 9. Based on this experience, EPA has developed a template for the process necessary to complete RTR rulemakings. The proposed schedule in the Declaration is based on this template, as adjusted to reflect the particular circumstances for each rulemaking based on EPA’s current knowledge. Id. ¶¶ 9, 14(b)-(d). The schedule also takes into account the 35 other RTR rulemakings in which EPA is either currently engaged or will begin shortly -- all of which are subject to the same statutory 4 While the technology and risk reviews are usually performed at the same time and this approach has significant efficiencies, the two reviews are not directly related. While there are some commonalities, there are differences in the information necessary for each review. Decl. ¶ 4. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 25 9 eight-year deadlines for risk and technology review that apply to the 13 source categories at issue here. Specifically:  EPA is working on the RTR rulemakings for two source categories, Coke Ovens and Large Municipal Waste Combustors, Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 7.  EPA is subject to court-ordered schedules to complete RTR rulemakings for four source categories.  The consent decree entered on October 8, 2015, in Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Civ. Act. No. 13-1369 (RDM), ECF 32, requires EPA to complete an RTR rulemaking for the Publicly Owned Treatment works category. EPA must sign a proposed rule by December 8, 2016, and sign a final rule by October 16, 2017. Id. ¶ 2.  The consent decree entered on September 26, 2011, in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv-00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.), ECF 96, requires EPA to complete an RTR action for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category. EPA must sign a proposed rule by June 15, 2017, and a final rule by June 15, 2018. Id. ¶ 28.  The order issued on March 15, 2016, in Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No: 3:15-cv-01165-HSG, 2016 WL 1055120 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2016), requires EPA to complete RTR actions for the Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources source category and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing source category by October 1, 2017.  Cross-motions for summary judgment to establish a schedule for proposing and issuing final RTR actions for 20 additional source categories are pending in California Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 25 10 Communities Against Toxics v. McCarthy, Case No. 1:15-cv-00512-TSC (D.D.C.). Plaintiffs have requested that the court order EPA to complete ten final RTR rules within one year of the date of a court order and the remaining ten rules within two years of that date. EPA has requested that the Court impose a staggered schedule that will require that all final RTR actions be completed by 2021.5  Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of different parties, have filed another action seeking to establish a schedule by which EPA must complete RTR actions for another nine source categories. Community In-Power & Development Ass’n v. McCarthy, Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ (D.D.C.). The schedule developed by EPA for the RTR reviews for the 13 source categories at issue in the present case is set out in the Tsirigotis Declaration and incorporated below. Table A. Proposal and Final Rule Dates for the 13 RTR Source Categories Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Fabric Printing 1/17/2018 1/15/2019 Metal Furniture 2/15/2018 2/12/2019 Large Appliances 3/15/2018 3/12/2019 Leather Finishing Operations 3/22/2018 3/19/2019 Wood Building Products 4/17/2018 6/11/2019 Friction Products Manufacturing 7/31/2018 7/25/2019 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 1/22/2019 3/17/2020 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 9/17/2019 9/9/2020 Taconite Iron Ore Processing 10/3/2019 10/27/2020 Lime Manufacturing 10/29/2019 12/15/2020 Iron and Steel Foundries 12/12/2019 4/6/2021 Plywood and Composite Wood Products 1/28/2020 5/20/2021 Misc. Coating Manufacturing 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 5 For the Court’s convenience, the proposed orders submitted by Plaintiffs and EPA in that matter are attached as Exhibits D and E. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 25 11 Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 8, Table 1. Under this schedule, EPA’s final action on the first of the 13 RTR rules will be signed no later than January 15, 2019, and the last rule will be signed on October 13, 2021. The start dates for EPA’s work on these rules range between February and October 2016. Decl. Table 2. Thus, the Agency will complete action on the 13 RTR final actions at issue in this case, as well the 26 of the actions described supra at 9-10, within approximately five years from the date this cross-motion for summary judgment is filed.6 (This total of 26 actions does not include the nine RTR rules at issue in the latest case, Community In-Power & Development Association, described above because EPA has not yet evaluated the time needed to complete those nine actions.) The Declaration provides detailed factual support for this schedule. Furthermore, as Mr. Tsirigotis testifies, Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule, which would require EPA to complete all 13 RTR rulemakings within two years after the Court issues a final order on the cross-motions 6 Plaintiffs contend that “EPA itself has previously conceded that “the minimum timeframe needed for completing [this type of rulemaking] is . . . 2 years from project kickoff.” Pltf Memo at 21. (Parenthetical and ellipses in the original) (quoting Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2016 WL 1055120, *4. The quoted language is an incomplete excerpt from the Declaration of Janet McCabe, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, ¶ 31 (Aug. 28, 2015), submitted in that matter. (This Declaration is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 in the present matter.) Ms. McCabe was responding to plaintiffs’ assertion that an RTR action could be completed within one year when she stated: Based on our recent experience, the minimum timeframe needed for completing an RTR project is fairly well established. No recent RTR project has been completed in less than 2 years from project kickoff, and any suggestion that it is possible to satisfactorily complete such an effort in a timeframe shorter than 2 years is without merit. Ms. McCabe then went on to describe the Agency’s experience in RTR actions since 2012. As illustrated by the chart attached to her declaration, none of these RTR actions was completed in less than 30.8 months. Thus, the statement that Ms. McCabe conceded that an RTR rulemaking could be completed in two years is a misreading of her Declaration. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 25 12 for summary judgment, would not allow enough time for the Agency to gather necessary emissions data or to produce rules that allow for adequate public participation and achieve the results intended by Congress. As explained in Mr. Tsirigotis’ Declaration, ¶¶ 10-20, there are nine phases of the RTR rulemaking process, which are summarized below. The Declaration also provides the amount of time necessary for each phase and explains how that timetable was applied for each of the 13 rules based on the Agency’s current understanding of the unique circumstances for each rule. The majority of this effort is focused on the residual risk review, which requires the collection of substantial amounts of data and other information, as well as extensive modeling and analysis. Most of the analysis related to the technology review is conducted in Phase V, concurrent with part of the residual risk review. As noted in Mr. Tsirigotis’ Declaration, ¶ 4, completing the two actions together is important to ensure that costly and potentially redundant controls are not required for sources through two separate rules or that tighter controls are rejected as being too costly in a second rule in light of marginal improvements from controls required in a first rulemaking. PHASE I: EPA identifies the potentially-interested outside parties, such as individual facilities, industry trade associations, and nongovernmental organizations and holds meetings with them to explain the rule development process and to seek information. EPA also hires contractors if necessary to support the work. Id. ¶ 12. This effort takes approximately two months. Id. PHASES II AND III: These phases focus on data collection, which is the foundation of any RTR review and subsequent rulemaking. The statutory language makes clear that Congress intended that determinations required under both section 112(d)(6) and section Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 12 of 25 13 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(d)(6), 7412(f)(2), would be both information-dependent and information-intensive actions. As detailed in the Tsirigotis Declaration, ¶¶ 13-14, particularly with respect to the residual risk review, these are complicated analyses and a significant amount of time is required to complete preliminary and, for some source categories, supplemental information collection to support the required determinations. The preliminary stage involves the collection of available data that are relevant for a full risk and technology review analysis. In addition, for the residual risk evaluation, EPA must also establish or update the inventory of the facilities within each source category and compile detailed information regarding such facilities’ emissions of HAP from every emission source that is part of the source category. Id. ¶ 13. EPA must perform this process for each source category; only then can EPA determine whether supplemental data is necessary. Id. ¶ 14. Any supplemental data that EPA deems necessary would be collected pursuant to CAA section 114, which authorizes EPA to require facilities to respond to requests for additional information. 42 U.S.C. § 7414. EPA can require the submission of existing information, such as emissions data and reports, and, where appropriate, EPA can require the facilities to perform additional emission testing. Id. EPA can issue such requests to nine or fewer entities on its own authority (in which case, the request is referred to as a “survey”). Decl. ¶ 14(a)). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), however, EPA must obtain the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to issue an information request to ten or more entities. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3)(A)(i) (definition of “collection of information”). This process is Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 13 of 25 14 complicated and time-consuming, as it requires two opportunities for public comment, as well as consideration by EPA and OMB.7 Id. §§ 3506-07.8 Not surprisingly, the scope of the information that EPA seeks to collect and the number of facilities involved determine the amount of time that EPA will need to finish Phases II and III for each source category. As explained in the Tsirigotis Declaration, EPA has made preliminary decisions on the amount of information that should be collected with respect to each of the 13 source categories:  For five categories, EPA does not expect to seek supplemental information. Decl. ¶ 14(b) and EPA has provided no time for this Phase in the schedule for these five categories.  For five categories, EPA expects to require supplemental information from 9 or fewer entities, which means that the Agency can proceed without OMB’s approval. Id. ¶ 14(c). If, as EPA currently expects, EPA does not need to require facilities to perform new emissions testing for two of these five categories, but only to provide existing data, this process – running from preparation of the request to receipt of the 7 Under 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c), after an information request subject to the PRA has been prepared by EPA, the request must be reviewed by EPA’s chief information officer who must consider whether the request meets the statutory requirements. The Agency must then publish a notice in the Federal Register and allow 60 days for public comment. To proceed further, the Agency must prepare a record, including the public comments, and certify that the collection request meets the statutory standards. Id. The record and certification are then submitted to OMB pursuant to section 3507. OMB must publish a notice in the Federal Register and allow a thirty- day comment period. Id. § 3507(b). OMB must decide whether to approve the request with 60 days of the later of (1) EPA’s publication of notice in the Federal Register or (2) OMB’s receipt of the certification and record from the Agency. If OMB has not acted by the end of this time period, OMB’s approval will be inferred. Id. § (c)(3). 8 EPA’s Administrator can request that OMB authorize the Agency to issue a request for the collection of information without complying with these procedures where, in relevant part, compliance would result in missing a court-ordered or statutory deadline. Id. § 3507(j)(1). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 14 of 25 15 responses - can be completed for these two categories in approximately seven months, as reflected in the schedule. If EPA determined that additional time was needed to collect new emissions testing for these two source categories, EPA would seek from the Court an extension of the applicable deadline prior to requiring such additional emissions testing. For the other three source categories for which EPA expects to issue a survey, EPA anticipates new emissions testing will be needed. EPA anticipates that between 6 and 12 months of additional time would be needed for this process and the schedule reflects the time needed for each of the three source categories. Id.  For the remaining three categories, at this point in time, EPA expects that, because of the number of facilities in the category and the scope of the anticipated information needs, the Agency should collect information from ten or more entities in order to conduct the most complete analyses. Id. ¶ 14(d). To do so, the Agency will have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act’s requirements described above, which, as already discussed, generally adds about 9 months to the information collection process. Supra 13-14 & n.8. EPA anticipates that new emissions testing will be required for these three source categories. Thus, for the purpose of developing the proposed schedule, and based on its current expectations regarding the extent of emissions testing that will be requested, EPA estimates that this phase will take between 18 and 24 months and has included the necessary period for each source category in the table. EPA may have to seek additional time from the Court should more extensive testing than anticipated be needed. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 14(d). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 15 of 25 16 PHASE IV: The next steps are data analyses and the development of the modeling file with information for each emission point for each facility in the source category at issue for the residual risk review. The modeling file represents all the available data on existing sources in a format that allows the data to be used to run risk models. Id. ¶ 15. In addition to emissions information, the modeling file includes other critical information such as the location of each emissions source and information on releases of fugitive emissions.9 Each file is subjected to extensive quality assurance/quality control review to ensure that the modeling file is accurate. This process is vital to the success of the rulemaking because inaccurate modeling can have a substantial effect on EPA’s final action. Id. Moreover, if errors are detected later, the modeling may have to be run more than once, which can add several more months to the schedule, depending on the degree of complexity for the particular category. EPA has estimated that this phase will take three to four months for each of the 13 source categories, depending on the level of complexity for the particular category. Id. PHASE V: During this phase EPA performs the bulk of its analytic work on the technology review in conjunction with continuing work on the residual risk review. Id. ¶ 16. Therefore, in preparing this schedule, EPA has not had to allow extra time specifically for the technology review. Id. ¶ 16(e). For the technology review, EPA evaluates the performance and costs of control technologies and other emission reduction measures that have been implemented or improved since the original standards were finalized. EPA also performs modeling and other analysis that form the basis of the risk assessment. There are at least two components for each category (an inhalation assessment and a multipathway screening 9 Fugitive emissions are emissions from a stationary source other than those that are captured and pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other such opening. Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 15. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 16 of 25 17 assessment), but, as discussed below, there may be up to four components to be prepared. Id. ¶ 16. These components involve different types of computer modeling, which allow EPA to assess different forms of risk. The time required to complete the modeling depends on the number of facilities in a particular category, the types of analyses expected, and the complexity of the project. Id. The inhalation assessment evaluates the risk to human health from inhalation of emissions from hazardous air pollutants from each facility; thus, the model must be run for every facility in the source category. The time required to complete modeling for the source category is dependent on the number of facilities, and the time required to complete modeling for each facility will depend on a mix of factors that are unique to each facility. Id. ¶ 16(a). EPA estimates that a minimum of 1-3 months is required to complete the inhalation assessment for all facilities in a source category. Id. The multipathway screening assessment, which evaluates exposure through means other than inhalation, is performed only for source categories with facilities that emit specific HAPs identified as persistent and bioaccumulative. Id. ¶ 16(b). This assessment has three tiers of analyses; the results of each analysis determines whether the next tier is required for a particular facility. As Mr. Tsirigotis explains, the first tier is a conservative analysis, but is largely based on default data, rather than on more site-specific data, which takes time to gather and verify. The second and third tiers require the use of progressively more site-specific values, as opposed to default values, in the computer modeling. Id. EPA’s proposed schedule allows an additional two months for this analysis for the seven source categories for which EPA expects second and/or third tier analysis to be needed. Id. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 17 of 25 18 There are two additional analyses that may be necessary in Phase V: (1) a refined multipathway assessment (which uses even more site-specific data) and (2) a risk-based demographic assessment. Id. ¶ 16(c)-(d). EPA cannot evaluate the need for these analyses until the inhalation assessment and the multipathway screening assessments have been completed. As described more fully in the Declaration, the refined multipathway analysis is a significantly more focused tool for analyzing the multipathway risk where one or more sources “fails” all three screening analyses, and a large amount of additional research and time are needed to use this tool. Because EPA does not now expect to need this refined analysis for the source categories at issue here, EPA has not included any time for this in its proposed schedule.10 A risk-based demographic assessment is an important tool in evaluating environmental justice concerns. Id. ¶ 16(d). This type of analysis is employed where the inhalation assessment indicates that the risk for the general population in the covered area is not low. EPA cannot be sure whether a demographic assessment is appropriate until the inhalation assessment has been completed. The demographic assessment typically takes approximately two weeks; the Agency has included this minimal time in developing the proposed schedule. Id. PHASE VI: This phase, during which the proposed rule package for each source category is developed, is started during the last month of the residual risk assessment. Id. ¶ 17. For each source category, EPA must consider the information collected and the statutory requirements to determine whether it is necessary to revise the current standards based on the results of the technology review pursuant to section 112(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6), and, if 10 The Agency may have to seek additional time if its current expectation proves to be mistaken. Id. ¶ 16(c). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 18 of 25 19 so, develop the necessary revisions. EPA must also consider the results of the analyses for the residual risk assessment described above and determine whether it is necessary to promulgate a standard to protect public health and the environment with an ample margin of safety under section 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2), and, if so, develop the necessary revisions. This process requires coordination with many parts of the Agency to ensure that all aspects of the reviews, including possible impacts on other programs, are considered. There are also many practical tasks that must be completed, such as preparing briefings for senior management so that decisions can be made; compiling and indexing the docket for the rulemaking in advance of public review; and drafting the proposed rules and preambles for signature by the Administrator. Under Executive Order 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735, 51,736 (Oct. 4, 1993), OMB review may be required. The Tsirigotis Declaration, ¶ 17, explains in detail the steps in EPA’s process, which takes approximately12 to 15 months. EPA has allowed between 12 and 15 months for this step for each of the 13 rules as provided in the table. PHASE VII: The seventh phase includes publication and an opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule. Id. ¶ 18. Although EPA cannot control the actual publication date in the Federal Register, publication generally occurs within two to four weeks after the proposed rule has been delivered to the Office of the Federal Register. Under CAA section 307(d)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(5), after the proposal has been published, EPA must hold a public hearing, which EPA typically schedules approximately 2 weeks after publication of the proposal. Decl. ¶ 18. By statute, the comment period must extend for at least 30 days from the time of the public hearing. Based on the Agency’s expectations concerning the interest in these rulemakings and experience with past rulemakings, however, EPA intends to provide a 60-day public comment period in order to provide interested parties a full opportunity to Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 19 of 25 20 provide comments on the proposed rule, including the preparation and submission of new or corrected data and information. Id. For each source category, EPA will need three months to complete Phase VII. Id. PHASE VIII: During this phase, which begins when the comment period ends, EPA reviews the public comments to identify the significant issues that may require technical analyses, raise significant policy issues, or require coordination across the agency, and develops initial responses to those comments. Id. ¶ 19. In addition, EPA must evaluate any new or corrected data in order to determine whether new analyses incorporating that data need to be performed to support the final rule. The time required to evaluate data submitted and to prepare an initial response to comments document varies with the volume and complexity of comments and whether additional data analysis is necessary in light of the comments. Id. EPA estimates that this process will take approximately three to five months, depending on the particular source category. Id. PHASE IX: During this final phase, which takes six to eight months, EPA must consider how the rule might be revised to address substantive comments and in light of new or corrected data. As with the process to complete the proposed rules in Phase VI, preparation of the final rule requires extensive coordination within the Agency so that the necessary decisions can be made, as well as the completion of practical tasks such as drafting the necessary documents and completing the assembly of the administrative record. Id. ¶ 20. Consistent with Executive Order 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. at 51,736, we have included three month for OMB review. Concurrent with OMB review, the Agency finalizes the response to comments and compiles and indexes the administrative record. Id. After all this has been completed, the Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 20 of 25 21 Administrator will sign the final rule, which will be transmitted to the Federal Register for publication. In sum, the Tsirigotis Declaration provides the Court with a detailed explanation of the many steps involved to complete the 13 rulemakings at issue and the amount of time that will be required to complete each stage. The Agency’s proposed schedule is based on the actual experience of EPA in finalizing RTR rulemakings for 31 categories under the schedule established in the consent decrees entered in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv-00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.), Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 1:09-cv-00089-CKK (D.D.C.), and Air Alliance Houston et al v. EPA, Case No. 12-1607 (D.D.C.). See Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 21. In the Sierra Club v. Jackson consent decree, entered in 2011, EPA committed to complete 28 RTR rules (most of which were already underway) by 2013.11 EPA’s expectations proved to be overly-optimistic. As shown by the attached docket sheet, many of these deadlines had to be extended by stipulation, as authorized by the Consent Decree. Exhibit C. EPA has learned from the difficulties encountered in that process and has developed a viable schedule here that should avoid the need to return to the Court for additional time (absent unanticipated circumstances as noted by Mr. Tsirigotis).12 The schedule proposed by EPA will allow for an orderly completion of the Agency’s statutory obligations with respect to the RTR rules at issue here, without necessitating shortcuts that could preclude EPA from obtaining and fully evaluating new information and data important for developing sound proposed rules or from considering data and substantive comments 11 For one category, the deadline for final action is not until 2018. Consent Decree, ¶ 28. 12 The Tsirigotis Declaration identifies several instances where an unanticipated development may make additional time necessary. See, e.g., id. ¶ 14(c)-(d). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 21 of 25 22 received during the public comment period in order to ensure the soundness of the final rules. Therefore, the remedy to be provided by the Court should be consistent with the schedule developed by EPA. III. PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS FOR A SHORTER SCHEDULE FAIL TO ADDRESS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RULEMAKINGS AT ISSUE In arguing that the Court should require EPA to complete the 13 RTR rulemakings at issue here in only two years, Plaintiffs do not address the actual tasks involved in these rulemakings. Moreover, Plaintiffs suggest that the Court should disregard the fact that the Agency is subject to many obligations, including deadlines for other RTR rules as described above. This suggestion was rejected in Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2016 WL 1055120, at *4 (“There is nothing about that standard that suggests the Court must consider how long the EPA could complete the requested rulemakings in isolation.”).13 Plaintiffs primarily rely on the fact that, in the 1990 Amendments, Congress required EPA to promulgate the initial NESHAPs in two years, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d), and suggests that the Court apply this same time limit to the RTR rulemakings at issue here. Pltfs. Memo at 20- 21. First, their request that the Court should require EPA to complete seven RTR rules in one year, rather than even the two allotted by Congress for the initial NESHAPs (which in any event would be insufficient, for reasons discussed above), is inconsistent with this very argument. Second, Plaintiffs’ assumption that this two-year statutory time limit can be transferred so easily is misplaced. As Congress implicitly recognized when it allowed eight 13 Plaintiffs argue that EPA could expedite its work if the Agency was not also working on rules that are not mandated by Congress. Pltf Memo at 24. The proceedings they cite, however, do not involve effort by the Sector Policies and Programs Division within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which is the unit of the Office of Air and Radiation that has the expertise necessary to complete RTR actions. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 22 of 25 23 years for the initial technology review and the residual risk review, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2), the RTR process entails issues that are outside the scope of the original NESHAP rulemaking and that may be complex and time-consuming to resolve. Most specifically, the RTR process requires EPA to evaluate risk to public health and the environment. Id. § 7412(f)(2). These assessments require more information regarding the emissions and emission sources at particular facilities than was required for setting the original NESHAPs. Moreover, the modeling which is the basis of these analyses is not required for the prior rulemakings. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ argument that the RTR process should automatically be subject to the two-year time limit established by section 7412(d)(2) is not justified. Although the Sierra Club court did conclude that the two-year period was appropriate in setting the deadline for two RTR actions because it was consistent with the time Congress allowed for EPA to promulgate emission standards for source categories, that court did not address the arguments set forth above. Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2016 WL 1055120, at *3. Plaintiffs further observe that, where the federal district courts have allowed EPA less time than the Agency requested to complete rulemakings, the Agency has met the court- ordered deadlines.14 This point misses the mark. While EPA may move for an extension of a 14 In suggesting that EPA overstates the amount of time necessary to complete rules, Plaintiffs point to Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d at 61, where the Court allowed EPA substantially less time than requested to complete a series of rules. Plaintiffs point to the fact that EPA timely finished the rules for the first 10 categories as evidencing that the Agency did not require the full time it had requested. Plaintiffs simply ignore the fact that, for most of the 40 other categories for which the Court established deadlines in this same decision, the deadlines were extended, sometimes repeatedly, by joint motion of the parties as the inherent complexities of the rulemaking process became clear. In addition, the district court also had to decide contested motions to extend several deadlines. See Civil Action 01-1537, Docket Sheet, Exhibit D. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 23 of 25 24 deadline where appropriate, the Agency will meet deadlines imposed by the federal courts.15 The issue, however, is not the shortest time period in which EPA can issue a rule, but rather the time that is needed for EPA to issue a workable rule consistent with Congressional intent. As explained, the unduly short deadlines requested by the Plaintiffs would require a significant compromise on the quality of the rule at issue. As demonstrated by the Tsirigotis Declaration, ¶ 21, in recent years EPA has not completed an RTR rulemaking in less than 2.5 years. In part, this is because the Agency has added new levels to its analyses, which are now more complicated. Id. If the time allowed is too short, the Agency would have to drop some of the refinements developed to improve the Agency’s understanding of the risks to human health and the environment associated with certain emission streams and thus to improve the RTR rulemaking process. Id. Furthermore, with a shorter schedule, EPA would have less time to collect data. In particular, a shortened timeframe would make it impractical or impossible to collect data from more than nine facilities in a given source category because there would be insufficient time to comply with the PRA requirements discussed above. Moreover, a restrictive schedule will also adversely affect the practicality of requiring additional testing at any facility. In addition, the Agency’s ability to give proper consideration to information received and issues raised in public comments will be adversely affected. Under the CAA, EPA must provide an opportunity for a public hearing and must leave the comment period open for 30 days following any hearing. A four-month period between the Administrator’s signature on 15 Plaintiffs do cite one case where EPA was held in civil contempt for failing to meet a court- ordered deadline to promulgate standards for radionuclides emissions. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 602 F. Supp. 892, 898 (N.D. Cal. 1984). That case, however, is more than 30 years old. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 24 of 25 25 the proposed rule and signature on a final rule would significantly undermine the Agency’s ability to consider and adjust the rule, if needed, in response to public comment. Plaintiffs recognize that the 13 source categories at issue here “span a wide range of operations, including iron and steel foundries, tire manufacturers, plywood mills, and taconite mines. Hundreds of facilities belong to these categories and are located throughout the country.” Pltf. Memo at 7. This recognition is inconsistent with their position that the RTR rules for the 13 source categories are straight-forward proceedings that can be completed on a rushed schedule. The Court should give careful consideration to these negative effects of a truncated process in evaluating Plaintiffs’ arguments. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on remedy and grant EPA’s cross-motion on remedy. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Eileen T. McDonough United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section Of Counsel P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 JAN TIERNEY eileen.mcdonough@usdoj.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 514-3126 Office of General Counsel ARN: MC-2344A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-3 Filed 09/26/16 Page 25 of 25 EXHIBIT A Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) AGAINST TOXICS, et al,, ) Plaintffi, v. GINA McCARTFIY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Action 1 : 15-cv-005 12-TSC ) ) ) ) ) bndant. DECLARATION OF PANAGIOTIS E. TSIRIGOTIS 1. I, Panagiotis E. Tsirigotis, under penalty of perjury, affirm and declare that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own personal knowledge or on information contained in the records of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or supplied to me by EPA employees under my supervision. 2, I am the Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD) within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) atEPA, aposition I have held since February 6,2006. SPPD is the division within OAQPS that has responsibility for, among other things, developing regulations, policy, and guidance associated with section 112 of Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 37 the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. ç 7412, which is the national emission standards forhazardous air pollutants OIESHAP) program. 3. In my current capacity as Director of SPPD, I am responsible for overseeing EPA's promulgation of significant regulations related to the NESHAP and solid waste combustion programs. In this capacity,I am familiar with the process required for developing and promulgating major EPA regulations under the CAA. 4. Section 112 addresses the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Section lI2(d)(2) requires EPA to establish emission standards for existing stationary sources based on the level of control achieved by the best controlled sources within the source category or subcategory and to set standards for new sources based on the best controlled similar source. Section 112(Ð(2)(A) provides, in part: [t]he Administrator shall, within 8 years after promulgation of standards for each category or subcategory of sources pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, promulgate standards for such category or subcategory if promulgation of such standards is required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health in accordance with this section . . . or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In addition, section 112(dX6) provides: The Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 37 The review conducted pursuant to section 112(Ð(2)(A) is commonly called the residual risk review, and the review conducted pursuant to section 112(d)(6) is known as the technology review. Each section's review is associated with a rulemaking action required by that section. EPA generally performs the residual risk review at the same time as the first technology review (collectively the "risk and technology review" or "RTR"). Although the reviews are not directly related, simultaneous consideration of the results of the two rulemaking reviews, including potential additional levels of control, is beneficial for multiple parties. For industry, this joint approach reduces the potential for unnecessary costs from imposing marginally more effective, yet potentially significantly more costly, controls in a second rulemaking; for public interest groups, this joint approach avoids the potential that EPA might reject such controls as too costly. Some information required to support each of the two reviews is different, as is the analysis EPA conducts for each of the reviews. The schedules discussed below account for the fact that EPA is conducting two rulemakings for each of the source categories at issue in this litigation. 5. As part of my duties as the Director of SPPD, I am involved in the prioritization and allocation of EPA's resources in order to meet the legal requirements of the CAA as well as the air quality needs of the nation. Given the funding and other resource constraints facing the agency, EPA is not able to 3 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 37 perform all activities that it may want to perform, and that it is authorizedto perform, at any given time. These constraints influence the manner and schedule by which EPA takes its required actions under the CAA. The timing of such actions can greatly affect the scope, quality, and informational bases that underlie them. Meeting all mandatory duties imposed by the CAA with limited resources requires EPA to make choices in the prioritization and scheduling of projects. 6. In allocating resources and prioritizing particular projects, OAR and SPPD look at several factors including but not limited to: (1) whether the CAA requires a project to be completed by a certain time; (2) the environmental and public health impacts of proceeding with a particular project compared to other projects; (3) the amount of resources that would be needed to complete a particular project; (a) the other mandatory duties under the CAA that are assigned to a particular office; and (5) the amount of information (including needs for additional information) required in order to appropriately support a project. I am very familiar with the processes and time periods allotted for EPA to take regulatory actions under the CAA, including issuing rules pursuant to CAA sections ll2(Ð(2)(A) and 1 12(dX6) , 42 U .5.C. $ $ 7412(Ð(2XA) and 7 412(dX6), respectively, often collectively referred to as "RTR rules." I have relied upon my staff to provide the factual information concerning the regulatory steps and schedule needed for the Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 37 particular CAA section II2 actions at issue in the case for which I make this declaration. 7, The purpose of this declaration is to explain EPA's proposed schedule for completing the RTR rulemakings for the 13 source categories listed in Table l. The schedules set forth in Table 1 take into consideration other obligations that OAR, and specifically the same division, SPPD, must meet within the same timeframe. These obligations include conducting RTR rulemakings for 33 other source categories as a result of separate lawsuitsl and completing RTR rulemakings for 2 other categories subject to the deadline in section I12(f)(2): Large Municipal Waste Combustors and Coke Ovens. Based on my experience, I The consent decree entered on October 8, 2015, in Siena Club v. McCarth)¡, Civ. Act. No. 13-1369 (RDM) (D.D.C.) established deadlines for an RTR for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works category: EPA must sign a proposed rule by December 8, 2016, and a frnal rule by October 16,201,7.Id. T 28. The consent decree entered on September 26,2011, in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv- 00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.) requires EPA to complete an RTR action for the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category: EPA must sign a proposed rule by June 75,2017 , and a final rule by June 15,2018. Id. '1T 28. In Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No: 3:15-cv-01165-HSG (N.D. Cal.), by court order dated March 15,2016, the district court ordered that EPA complete an RTR action for the Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources source category and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing source category by October 1,20L7. In California Communities Against Toxics v. McCarthy, Case No: 1 :15-cv-00512 (D.D.C.), cross motions for summary judgment are pending before the court and those motions present competing schedules for proposing and issuing frnal RTR actions for 20 source categories. Finally, a recently-filed action seeks to establish a schedule by which EPA must complete RTR actions for another 9 source categories. Community In-Power and Development Association v. McCarthy, Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ (D.D.C.). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 37 extensive consultation with OAQPS staft and consideration of these other pending RTR actions, the following schedule represents my best estimate of the minimum reasonable time needed for completion of the risk and technology reviews and promulgation of additional standards, if needed, for these 13 source categories. If EPA is required to act on a shorter schedule, the Agency would be forced to take procedural or analytical shortcuts that I believe could jeopardize both the soundness of the regulatory actions and their legal defensibility. 8. The proposed schedules for the 13 source categories are shown in Table 1. Section A of this declaration discusses the rulemaking phases and provides details on the amount of time needed to complete each phase. able l. Proposal and Final Rule Dates tbr the 3 RTR Source Catesories Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Fabric Printine Ut712018 Ut5l20I9 Metal Furniture 21t512018 211212019 Large Appliances 3lrsl20r8 3lr2l20r9 Leather Finishine Operations 312212018 3l1'912019 Wood Buildins Products 4l17l20r8 6lrv20r9 Friction Products Manufacturing 713t/20t8 7l2sl20r9 Rubber Tire Manufacturing Il22l20I9 31t712020 Wet Formed Fiberelass Mat Production 9l17l20t9 9/912020 Taconite Iron Ore Processins r013l2019 10/2712020 Lime Manufacturins 10129120t9 1,21t512020 Iron and Steel Foundries tzlr2/20r9 4/61202r Plvwood and Composite Wood Products U2812020 512012021 Misc. Coatins Manufacturins 61t712020 1,0/1312021 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 37 9. The SPPD within OAQPS is responsible for development of the RTR rules at issue in the litigation. SPPD prepared a template that identifies the phases in the RTR rulemaking that cover all rulemaking tasks and accounts for the minimum time necessary to adequately complete those tasks. This template and the resulting schedule are based on SPPD's actual experience finalizing RTR projects covering 31 source categories since 2012. 10. The RTR rulemaking process can be divided into 9 phases: Phase I. Project Kickoff Phase II. Preliminary Information Collection PhaseIII. SupplementallnformationCollection Phase IV. DataAnalyses and Modeling File Development Phase V. Residual Risk Analyses and Technology Review Phase VI. Development of Rule Proposal Package Phase VII. Proposed Rule Publication and Public Comment Period Phase VIII. Summarization of Comments, Development of Comment Responses and Analysis of Data Phase IX. Development of Final Rule Package Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 37 A. General Schedule Requirements for Risk and Technology Review Projects. I 1. The following paragraphs describe the individual tasks typically required to complete RTR projects and provide estimates of the time required to adequately complete each task. As a starting point in our consideration of the minimum time needed to complete these rulemakings, for planning purposes, \ile assumed that the Court will grant the schedule that we requested to issue RTR rules for 20 source categories in our Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in California Communities Against Toxics v. McCarthy.2If the court in that earlier case, in ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, orders EPA to complete the20 RTR rules in a substantially shorter period, the Agency may have to reallocate resources, which could impair EPA's ability to meet the Agency's proposed schedule for the l3 RTR actions addressed in the present matter. Should that occur, EPA will promptly provide a revised schedule to the Court. Tab\e2 below shows the start state and the number of days estimated for each proposal phase (Phases I - VI) for each source category, and Table 3 shows the number of days estimated for each final rule phase (Phases VII - IX) for each category. Most 2 The schedule in EPA's Motion provides a staggered schedule for the Agency to issue proposed and final rules for all 20 source categories, with the first proposed rule to be issued no later than Aug. 16,2017 and the last frnal rule to be issued no later than November 17,2021. The Petitioners requested that the court set. a2-year schedule for EPA to complete RTR rulemakings for all20 source categories. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 37 of the columns in the tables are self-explanatory, but two require some explanation. First, the "Complexity (1-3)" column refers to the expected relative complexity of the projects, with "1" being the least complex and "3" being the most complex. We note that all of the RTR projects include extensive data analysis and risk modeling activities that are both time and resource intensive. In determining the relative complexity, we considered factors such as the number of facilities in a source category, the number and types of pollutants emitted, the number and type of emission sources in a source category, and the expected interest and involvement of external parties, such as regulated entities and public interest groups, in the rulemaking effort. The relative complexity impacts the time needed for certain phases of each of the rulemaking projects and is reflected in our proposed schedules. Second, the "SPPD Group" column refers to the group within EPA that houses the staff with specific expertise in the particular source categories. This is relevant for determining the time it will take to complete the 13 rulemakings at issue because of the workload capacity of the staff. We note that all but one of these projects were started over the past 6 months, and the start dates are based on the date early project activities occurred (such as assignment of a project lead, drafting of a work assignment, or internal project kickoff meetings). (remainder of page intentionally left blank) Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 37 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS FOR EACH RTR PROPOSAL PHASE BY SOURCE CATEGORY Source Catesorv Complexity t1-3) SPPD Group No. of Facilities Start Date Phase I Days Phase II Davs Phase UI Davs Phase TV Davs Phase v(a) Davs Phase v(b) Davs Phase v(d) Davs Phase VI Davs Proposal Date Fabric Printing I MMG 54 3/24116 45 90 0 120 30 0 t4 365 t/17/18 Met¿l Furniture I MMG l9 3/24116 45 90 0 120 30 0 t4 394 2/ts/18 Large Appliances I MMG 12 3/24/16 45 90 0 r20 30 0 t4 422 3/t5/18 Leather Finishing I NRG 7 7/t2116 30 90 0 90 30 0 l4 364 3/22/18 \Mood Building Products 2 NRG 51 5/12116 30 90 0 t20 60 0 14 391 4/t7/18 Friction Products I MMG 5 4/8/16 45 90 210 90 30 0 14 365 7/31/t8 Rubber Tire Mfg. 2 MMG 25 4/t3/16 45 90 2t0 t20 60 60 l4 4ts r/22/19 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Prod. I ESG 7 t0/3/16 60 90 370 90 30 60 t4 365 9/7/19 Taconite Iron Ore 2 MIG 7 7/tl/16 60 90 410 r20 30 60 t4 395 t0/3/t9 Lime Mfg. 2 ESG 39 8/Ut6 60 90 390 t20 60 60 t4 390 t0/29/19 Iron and Steel Foundries J MIG 68 3/31/t6 60 90 540 t20 60 60 14 407 t2/t2/19 Plywood and Composite Wood Products J NRG 450 3/28/16 30 90 600 120 90 60 t4 397 r/28/20 Misc. Coating Manufacturing J RCG 47 2/t/16 60 90 720 120 90 60 t4 444 6/17/20 10 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 37 TABLE 3. ESTIMATED MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS FOR EACH RTR FINAL RULE PHASE BY SOURCE CATEGORY Source Categorv Complexity ll-3) SPPD Group Proposal Date Phase VII Davs Phase VIil Davs Phasex Davs Final Rule Date Fabric Printing I MMG t/17/18 90 90 183 t/t5/t9 MetalFurniture I MMG 2/t5/t8 90 90 182 2/t2l19 Large Appliances I MMG 3/t5/18 90 90 182 3/12/t9 Leather Finishing I NRG 3/22t18 90 90 t82 3/l9l19 Wood Building Products 2 NRG 4/t7/t8 90 t20 2t0 6/tvt9 Friction Products I MMG 713tl18 90 90 179 7/25/19 Rubber Tire Mfg. 2 MMG U22119 90 120 210 3lt7/20 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Prod. I ESG 9/7/19 90 90 178 9/9/20 Taconite Iron Ore 2 MIG t0t3/19 90 t20 180 t0127/20 Lime Mfg. 2 ESG t0/29/19 90 t20 203 t2ll5/20 Iron and Steel Foundries 3 MIG t2/12/19 90 150 241 4/6121 Plywood and Composite Wood Products 3 NRG 1/28/20 90 ls0 238 s/20/2t Misc. Coating Manufacturing 3 RCG 6n7/20 90 150 243 t0lt3/21 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 12 of 37 12, Phase L Project Kickoff (2 months) The major tasks to be accomplished in this phase include: (a) Establish a project team and an intra-agency worþroup, determine whether the project will be completed with or without contractor support, secure funding if contractor support is required, and develop an overall project plan and schedule. (b) Identiff potential stakeholders, such as regulated entities and public interest groups, interested in the rule development. Prepare written materials and brief stakeholders on the general plans for the project. Conduct multiple meetings with the various stakeholder groups. (c) We expect that a contractor will perform some of the work for each of the 13 projects. Therefore, the schedule includes time for activities related to establishing work assignments, including: preparing a work assignment that establishes the specifrc tasks and schedule for each project; contractors developing a worþlan based on the work assignment; EPA reviewing and commenting on the worþlan; contractor revising the worþlan in response to EPA comments and submitting the final worþlan for EPA approval; and EPA completing the administrative tasks to fund the work assignment. 13. Phase IL Prelímínary Inþrmation Collection (3 months) The major tasks to be accomplished in this phase include: L2 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 13 of 37 (a) Collect available background literature concerning the source category and technology relevant to the source category from project files, EPA's library, major university libraries, public libraries, and the Intemet. (b) Collect available information regarding the effectiveness of the current standards and developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. (c) Establish the current inventory of facilities in the source category by reviewing project files, permits, and EPA databases; coordinating with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and EPA Regional Offices; and contacting state agencies. (d) Gather and compile data from all available sources, including data on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from facilities in the source category, in order to determine whether additional information collection is needed to sufficiently characterize emissions from the source category. 14. Phase IlL Supplemental Inþrmation Collection (0 to 28 months) (a) While we currently believe that supplemental information collection will be necessary for more than half of the source categories in order for EPA to complete a sound and defensible rulemaking, we will make a final determination following the preliminary information collection phase for each project. The EPA can select from 3 options for supplemental information collection. The first option, 13 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 14 of 37 for categories where we already have sufficient information, is to not collect additional information. The second option, which we refer to as a "survey" in this declaration, is to send a request for information to 9 or fewer entities in a source category. This type of information collection , authorized under section I 14 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ç 7414, does not require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The third option, which we refer to as an "information collection request (ICR)" in this declaration, is to send a request for information to 10 or more entities in a source category. This type of information collection, also authorized under section 114 of the CAA, requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. $$ 3502(3XA), 3507, and requires a significant amount of additional time and resources. Regardless of the number of entities, development of either a survey or an ICR involves identifying information needs, developing questions and instructions, and preparing an electronic system (i.e., spreadsheets or a database) for information submittal. While some questions are generic in nature, much of the survey or ICR is tailored to the specific industry, so a survey or ICR is unique for each source category and requires time and resources to develop. (b) Our current information suggests that we do not need to collect additional information to complete the RTRs for the following 5 source categories: Fabric Printing, Metal Furniture,Large Appliances, 'Wood Building Products, and 14 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 15 of 37 Leather Finishing Operations. Therefore, our proposed schedule does not include time for supplemental information collection for these categories. We estimate That for the other 8 source categories some amount of supplemental information collection is necessary to support sound and defensible risk and technology reviews, as discussed in the following paragraphs. (c) Based on current information regarding the number of facilities in each category and anticipated information needs, we projectfhat a survey would be the best approach for supplemental information collection for the following 5 source categories: Friction Products Manufacturing, Rubber Tire Manufacturing, \iVet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, Taconite Ore Processing, and Lime Manufacturing. Therefore, our supplemental information collection for those 5 categories would not require approval by OMB. These surveys can generally be completed in approximately 7 months, depending on the scope of the collection, if, as EPA expects for 2 of these 5 categories, no new emission testing is required. We expect the preparation process for the surveys to take a minimum of 45 days, followed by aZl-day internal review, 7 days for revisions, a 30-day stakeholder review, and 74 days for final revisions and distribution to industry. An adequate response period for subject entities is a minimum of 3 months, which allows time for review of the questions, gathering of information regarding processes, emission controls, raw materials, pollution prevention measures and other requested 15 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 16 of 37 information, compilation of existing testing and monitoring data, development of emission estimates, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), review and approval by facility management, and formal submittal of information, with certification stating that the information submitted is an accurate representation of facility operations and emissions. We do not anticipale a need to require new emission (or raw materials) testing for 2 of these 5 categories and are only including the amount of time necessary for performing new tests in our proposed schedules for 3 of the categories, Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, Taconite Iron Ore Processing, and Lime Manufacturing. However, if the information gathered indicates, in EPA's judgment, a need for new emission testing, we would seek the Court's leave to revise the schedule before requiring the testing. If the schedule was adjusted to allow time for the additional testing, we would prepare testing requests and send the requests to the appropriate entities. This process takes a minimum of 6 additional months and can take up to an additional year depending on multiple factors, including the extent of the testing, the specific pollutants tested (some laboratory analyses take up to 1 month to complete), the time of year (weather conditions may preclude testing at some locations during winter months), and facility schedules (seasonal production variations, planned or unplanned outages, etc.). The overall process involves selection of emission points and emission test methods, discussions with stakeholders regarding nuances in process t6 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 17 of 37 operations that can impact emissions, preparation of detailed test request documents, procurement of test contractors by the facilities, emissions testing, laboratory analysis of samples, and submittal of data through EPA's electronic reporting tool. (d) Based on current information regarding the number of facilities in each category and anticipated information needs, we project that an ICR would be the best approach for detailed information collection for the following 3 source categories: Plywood and Composite Wood Products, Iron and Steel Foundries, and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing. Therefore, our supplemental information collection for those 3 categories would require approval by OMB. While many of the steps and timeframes are similar to those described above for surveys, the requirements related to review by OMB add about 9 months to the overall process. Therefore, information collection for the projects that include an ICR can generally be completed in 16 months if no new emissions testing is required. Where new emissions testing is required, this period would need to be extended by up to 12 more months for a total of up to 28 months. 'We expect that some amount of testing would best support our risk assessments, and our schedules include additional time for new emissions testing for each of the projects that include an ICR. We note that any such testing requests would require OMB approval. For the Plywood and Composite Wood Products source category, our schedule reflects somewhat less 17 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 18 of 37 time than the maximum outlined above because prior to the project "kickoff" we already began development of the ICR and because we know the scope of the data needed for the RTR and plan to include in the ICR a plan for emissions testing that we will implement if the needed dataare not readily available. We also note that the first Federal Register notice for this ICR was recently published. Considering the work that we already completed related to ICR development, our schedule reflects a total of 20 months to complete the Plywood and Composite Wood Products ICR, including the requirement for new emissions testing. For Iron and Steel Foundries, where we also anticipate the need for new emission testing, we estimate a total of 18 months to complete the ICR. This time period is somewhat shorter than typically needed for an ICR and testing program because we already have a sense of the data needs and thus plan to include new emissions testing requests when the ICRs are issued, rather than issuing the test requests after the initial ICR responses are submitted and assessed. For Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, we anticipate a 2-phase ICR where testing needs would be identified after the initial ICR responses are submitted and data needs are assessed. For this source category, we do not currently have sufficient information to identiff data gaps (i.e., the processes that lack emissions information) and the appropriate emissions testing or other data needs. Therefore, we estimate a time period of 24 months, which allows for completion of a2-phase ICR. We also note 18 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 19 of 37 that the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing ICR and RTR rulemakingare planned to be completed as part of a larger rulemaking effort that includes two other source categories, the Miscellaneous Organics NESHAP and Organic Liquids Distribution. These categories are part of a separate deadline suit before this same court. IVe plan to conduct these rulemakings simultaneously because many of the facilities have operations that are part of all three categories. As such, we are requesting the same schedule for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing that we already requested for the other two projects. Should we determine that more extensive emission testing (than allowed for by this timeframe) for any of the categories is necessâry, we would seek the Court's leave to revise the schedule before requiring the testing. 15. Phase IV. Data Analyses and Modeling Fíle Development (3 to 4 Months) Based on the information and data gathered for each source category, EPA develops a detailed modeling file that provides required inputs to the risk models. The modeling file includes the following information for every emission point in the source category at each facility: precise stack location; stack parameters including height, diameter, stack gas velocity and temperature; emissions values for each pollutant; and other site specific information. The modeling file also includes information for fugitive releases (i.e., emissions from a stationary source other than those that are captured and pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other 19 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 20 of 37 such opening): precise location, release parameters including fugitive lengths and widths, gas velocity, and temperature. The file undergoes extensive quality assurancelquality control (QA/QC) activities to minimize enors. Example QA/QC activities include plotting of source locations on maps to ensure that the locations are correct and identification of incorrect emission values through outlier analyses. The amount of time required for modeling file preparation is dependent on multiple factors, including the number of facilities and the complexity of the source category. Specifically, the file for a category with a handful of emission points per facility requires significantly less time than a file for a complex industry with multiple emission points. We note that this phase is critical because any enors in the modeling file impact all future project activities. 'We estimate a minimum of between 3 and 4 months for completion of this phase depending on the complexity of the project. 16. Phase V. Residual Risk Analysís and Technologlt Review (2 to 6 months) There are multiple components to residual risk assessments: (a) inhalation assessment, (b) multipathway screening assessments, (c) multipathway refined assessment, and (d) risk-based demographic assessment. Components are conducted for a source category as needed. All estimates provided in this phase assume that the emission inventory has undergone QA/QC, as discussed above, before receipt by the risk assessors, and that modeling will be conducted one time, Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 21 of 37 not multiple times. If sufficient QA/QC is not conducted, the time required for modeling can increase several fold. We estimate the time for each category considering our preliminary evaluations of the complexity of the project, the size of the source category, and the types of analyses anticipated. Some of the smaller, less complex source categories may require as little as 2 months for modeling as reflected in the schedule, and some of the larger, more complex categories may require as much as 6 months for modeling, as reflected in the schedule and as described in paragraphs (a) - (d), below. It is importantto note that after the time- consuming process of developing a modeling file is complete, a single run of the computer model can take up to 2 weeks for larger, complex source categories. (a) An inhalation assessment, which estimates the risk from chronic inhalation of each pollutant, is always conducted, and the minimum amount of time required for this step is between I and 3 months. For a specific source category, the amount of time required for the inhalation assessment depends on the number of facilities in the category, the number of sources at the facilities, the number of pollutants emitted from the sources, and the locations of the facilities. The risk assessors check the centroids of each census block (which are the geographic center of the census block and are used as receptors in the model) to ensure that they are not located on facility property and that they accurately represent the location of the population in each census block. The location where 2t Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 22 of 37 people live is a key factor in risk assessment because, in general, higher risks tend to occur closer to the facility. If a facility is located in a heavily populated area, more census blocks will be around the facility, and more time is needed to conduct these checks. Next, because the model estimates ambient air concentrations at every census block centroid within 50 kilometers of a facility and for every pollutant from every source from every facility in the source category, modeling for categories with more pollutants, more stacks, more facilities, and/or in heavily- populated areas will take longer to run and longer to post-process, perform QA/QC, and document the results. If additional modeling scenarios are required (e.g., to estimate risks from post-control emissions), additional time is needed. Concurrently, we also assess the potential for acute non-cancer inhalation risk for each source category. ìVe estimate between 1 and 3 months for the inhalation assessment for each of the source categories. (b) The 3-tiered multipathway screening assessments, which are used to provide upper-bound estimates of risk from ingestion of food contaminated with pollutants emitted from the source category (..g., metals that bioaccumulate in fish), are only conducted on persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP). These include cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and polycyclic organic matter. Categories not emitting these pollutants do not require multipathway assessments. Only if a facility "fails" 22 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 23 of 37 the screen at one tier (i.e., upper-bound estimated risks are higher than levels that might be of concem) is the next tier conducted. Each tier replaces default values with more site-specific values. If PB-HAP are present, the first two tiers of the multipathway screen are conducted, as needed, concurrent with the inhalation assessment, so additional time is not required. In addition, a two-tiered environmental risk screen is conducted simultaneously with the multipathway screen, and additional time beyond that needed for the multipathway screen is not required. If a category has facilities that emit high levels of PB-FIAP, it may "fail" the first two multipathway screens, and the third tier screen may be conducted. The third tier multipathway screen can take additional weeks to months, depending on the number of facilities and pollutants that "fail" the first 2 screens. For the following 6 source categories, available information indicates that PB HAP are not emitted by most or all facilities: Fabric Printing, Metal Furniture,Large Appliances, Leather Finishing Operations,'Wood Building Products, and Friction Products Manufacturing. Therefore, we project that for those 6 categories, the assessment will either not need a tier 1 screen, or will "pass" the tier 1 screen if PB-HAP are emitted. For those 6 categories, no additional time beyond that required for the inhalation assessment is anticipated. If we determine that PB-HAP are emitted from the source category in quantities that would cause facilities to fail 23 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 24 of 37 one or more tiers of the screen, we may seek additional time to conduct the additional screens. For the other 7 source categories (Rubber Tire Manufacturing, Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, Taconite Iron Ore Processing, Lime Manufacturing, Iron and Steel Foundries, Plywood and Composite Wood Products, and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, preliminary information suggests that PB-HAP are likely emitted, and we project that all three tiers of the screening assessments will need to be run. For each of these 7 categories, the schedule includes 2 months for conducting the multipathway screen. (c) If a source category has facilities that "fail" the tier 3 multipathway screen, the risk assessment team may determine that a refined multipathway assessment is necessary. It is not automatically conducted. If one is conducted, additional months (and resources) are required to complete that assessment. While the tier 3 multipathway screen includes some site-specific parameters, there are many parameters that are still based on nationwide default values. A refined multipathway assessment attempts to replace as many of these parameter default values as possible with site-specific values. The gathering of this site-specific data and the design of the model parcels (that is, the topography and location of lakes and land that greatly influence the multipathway assessment) around the facility take the bulk of the time in a refined multipathway assessment. Once the inputs are prepared, the multipathway model is run, and results undergo QA/QC and are 24 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 25 of 37 summarized for the risk assessment team. For one facility, it could take an additional three to four months to conduct a refined multipathway assessment. Additional facilities will require additional time. It is not anticipated that a refined multipathway assessment will be necessary for any of the source categories, so no additional time beyond that for an inhalation assessment is required. If we determine that a refined multipathway assessment is necessary for one or more pollutants emitted from any source category, we would seek additional time to conduct the analysis. (d) Finally, if EPA determines that a risk-based demographic assessment is necessary, 1 to 2 additional weeks will be required. This type of analysis is used to determine if emissions from a particular source category result in disproportionate risks to various demographic groups living near facilities in that particular source category and thus is an important tool for EPA's consideration of environmental justice issues. A risk-based demographic assessment cannot be conducted until the inhalation modeling is complete. For all 13 source categories, we plan to conduct risk-based demographics assessment, and \Me are including an additional 2 weeks, beyond the time required for the inhalation assessment, in our proposed schedule. (e) Concurrent with the residual risk analyses (and, therefore, not requiring additional time), we also perform the technology review, which involves 25 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 26 of 37 evaluation of developments in practices, processes and controls to determine whether or not standards should be updated to reflect those developments. As part of the technology review, EPA evaluates the performance of control technologies and other emission reduction measures that have been implemented or improved since the original standards were finalized.In conjunction with the emission reductions that we project, we also evaluate the cost of achieving those reductions in order to determine if any of the developments should be incorporated into the standards. The options identified in the technology review also are considered as part of the risk review, where we assess the potential risk reductions associated with each option. 'We also evaluate advances in monitoring technologies when conducting the technology review. 17. Phase VI. Development of Rule Proposal Packnge (12 to 15 Months, concurrent with last I month of Residual Risk Analyses) The amount of time for individual tasks in this phase is difficult to separate because multiple tasks have considerable overlap. In general, these tasks require technical analyses, multiple briefings for EPA management, drafting of technical memoranda and the regulatory package, and review of the regulatory package by the workgroup, EPA management, and, in most instances, OMB. Overall, we estimate this phase to take 12to 15 months, with work on the phase beginning during the last month of the residual risk analyses discussed under Phase V. We note that the time periods for this phase for some of the projects were adjusted by Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 27 of 37 up to 30 days in order to avoid weekends, holidays, or overlap with other project briefing or signature dates. The major tasks to be completed in this phase include: (a) Drafting workgroup briefing materials, including development of regulatory options for possible inclusion in the proposed rule and the impacts and issues associated with each option, and meeting with the workgroup to discuss the materials. The EPA workgroup includes staff with a wide range of expertise, including health researchers, attorneys, compliance and enforcement staff, and regional office representatives, and their review is extremely valuable in assuring rulemaking quality. The workgroup provides input on health benchmarks, various technical analyses and aspects of the risk assessment, ease of enforcement, monitoring and testing technology, policy, and other aspects of the rulemaking; (b) Preparing briefing materials and briefing EPA management for selection of the regulatory option(s) for inclusion in the proposed rule; (c) Drafting proposed preamble and regulatory text, including preliminary review by OAR management. (d) Drafting supporting documentation for the proposed rulemaking package to present and describe all the data used, technical analyses completed, and regulatory options considered and selected; (e) Submitting draft regulatory preamble and text and supporting documents to the EPA workgroup for review, which helps to ensure, among other 27 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 28 of 37 things, legal sufficiency, sound scientific support, and consistency with other programs. Internal EPA procedures mandate that worþroup review is a minimum of 15 working days (approximately three weeks), and we therefore include 21 calendar days in our proposed schedule; (Ð After drafts are revised as necessary to obtain workgroup approval, the proposal package is reviewed by SPPD, OAQPS, and OAR management and, for projects that are considered significant regulatory actions, by OMB. 'We have included 3 months for OMB review for each of the source categories. See Executive Order 12866. The docket for the proposed rule is compiled and indexed so as to be available for public review upon publication of the proposed rule; and (g) After final approval is obtained from EPA management, the EPA Administrator signs the proposed rule, which is then sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. 18. Phase VII. Proposed Rule Publication and Publíc Comment Period (3 months) The public comment period begins on the date that the proposed rule is published in the Federal Reeister, and publication in the Federal Register typically takes between 2 weeks and I month following signature. Since EPA has very limited influence over the time for publication, we are assuming publication takes I month. The CAA requires that the public comment period remain open for 30 days following a public hearing on the rule. CAA section 307(dX5). Since a public 28 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 29 of 37 hearing cannot be held until about 2 weeks after publication of the proposal 1to allow for interested parties to make plans whether to attend the hearing and to review the proposed rule and prepare oral comments), the default "minimum" amount of time for the comment period is 45 days. However, because of the complexity of these rules, including the detailed emissions data and the modeling analysis for risk, EPA plans to provide a 60-day public comment period. Therefore, this phase will take a total of 3 months. 19. Phase VIIL Summarizatíon of Comments, Development of Comment Responses and Analysis of Data (3 to 5 months) (a) Following the public comment period and public hearing, if one is held, EPA drafts a summary of the comments. The number and complexity of the comments greatly varies from rule to rule. We typically receive between 10 and 50 unique, substantive comment letters, some including detailed technical data and information, on RTR proposals, although this number has been as high as about 200 for some of the larger, more complex source categories. We estimate fhat drafting a written summary of comments for source categories where limited comments are expected will take 1 month; for categories where more comments are expected, we estimate 2 months. (b) EPA evaluates each relevant comment to determine an appropriate response. Some responses are straightforward, some require briefing EPA management, and some require re-analysis of data or analysis of new data supplied 29 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 30 of 37 during the comment period. For each source category, we estimate betweenZ and3 months for developing and drafting initial comment responses and conducting additional data analyses, if needed. In cases where we get an unusually large number of comments, the comment response task could take longer than our estimated time, and we would likely seek additional time to complete the final rule. 20. Phase IX. Development of Fínal Rule Package (6 to 8 months) The individual tasks in this phase generally include technical analyses, multiple briefings for EPA management, drafting of technical memoranda and the regulatory package, and review of the regulatory package by the workgroup, EPA management, and, in most instances, OMB. Overall, we estimate this phase to take 6 to 8 months. 'We note that the time periods for this phase for some of the projects were adjusted by up to 30 days in order to avoid weekends, holidays, or overlap with other project briefing schedules or signature dates. The major tasks to be accomplished in this phase include: (a) Drafting regulatory options for changes to the proposed rule based on comments received during the public comment period and briefing the workgroup. 'We estimate l5 days to complete this task. (b) Preparing recommendations and briefing EPA management on comments received and changes recommended as a result of those comments. This 30 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 31 of 37 task involves briefrngs for SPPD management, OAQPS management, and OAR management. This briefing process takes a minimum of 1 month. (c) Completing all needed technical analyses (which may include evaluating control options identified during the comment period, revising the technology review to reflect the new options, updating costs, updating economic impacts, updating emissions impacts, re-running risk models, and re-evaluating risk decisions); preparing the draft final rule preamble, regulatory text and other components of the rule package including updating supporting documentation and drafting new supporting documentation as needed; and compiling the comment summary and response document. We estimate a minimum of I to 2 months for these activities, depending on the complexity of the rule. (d) Submitting draft materials to the workgroup for review, which helps to ensure, among other things, legal suffrciency, sound scientific support, and consistency with other programs. The workgroup is the same as that for the proposed rule and serves the same function. Internal EPA procedures mandate that workgroup review is a minimum of 15 working days (approximately 3 weeks), and we therefore include 2t calendar days in our proposed schedule. (e) Completing final documents, with consideration of workgroup comments. The final preamble and rule are reviewed by SPPD, OAQPS, and OAR management and, for projects that are considered significant regulatory actions, 31 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 32 of 37 OMB. We include 3 months for OMB review for each of the source categories, as specified in Executive Order 12866. While OMB reviews the rule, we compile and index the administrative record, finalize the response to comments document, and ftnalize various supporting technical documents as needed. After any necessary revisions are made to the final rulemaking package, the final rule is signed and sent to the Office of Federal Register for publication. We estimate that this process will take a minimum of 3 to 4 months. B. Time for Completion of Prior RTR Actions Supports the Schedules for the 13 RTRs. 21. The Agency has included, as an attachment to this declaration, a table showing the time it took EPA to propose and finalize RTRs for the last 31 source categories (all categories completed since 2012). See Attachment 1. The schedules set forth for the 13 RTR rulemakings at issue in this declaration are consistent with the shortest time periods it actually took EPA to complete these prior RTR rulemakings. Based on our recent experience, the minimum timeframe needed for completing an RTR project is fairly well established. No recent RTR project has been completed in less than2.5 years from project start date, and any suggestion that it is possible to satisfactorily complete such an effort in a timeframe shorter thanZ.S years is without merit. Since 20L2, EPA finalized RTR rulemakings for 31 source categories. The initial schedules for these 31 categories were established 32 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 33 of 37 under earlier consent decrees,3 which provided a maximum of about 3.5 years for completion, with shorter timeframes provided for most of the source categories. Notably, however, even with this timeframe we had to renegotiate deadlines multiple times because the original schedule was not sufficient to complete the projects for most of the source categories, including categories where work began prior to the agreement. As shown in the analysis of the time required to complete these complex rulemakings, since 2012, only 2 of the 31 source categories (Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage, both part of the same rulemaking package) were completed in less than 3 years (from project start date to publication of the final rule). The RTR rules for these 2 source categories, which did not include an ICR, were completed in just over 2.5 years, which is consistent with the amount of time that EPA estimates for completing an RTR project for a relatively simple source category without an ICR. Sixteen of the source categories were completed in 3 to 4 years, and of those, only 2 categories included a survey, and none included an OMB-approved ICR. The RTR rulemakings for the remaining 13 source categories all included ICRs, and the projects' completion times ranged from 4.5 years to more than 8 years. While many of these projects included multiple proposals and renegotiations of 3 The consent decrees were entered in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv- 001,52 SBA (N.D. Cal.); Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson (D.D.C. No. 1 :09-cv- 00089-CKK); Air Alliance Houston et al v. EPA, Case No. 12-1607 (D. D.C.). Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 34 of 37 schedules, the amount of time that it took to complete these projects reflects reality. It is evident from this real-world experience that the schedules we are requesting are reasonable and appropriate representations of the minimum amount of time needed to complete these projects. 22. EPA has refined the RTR process over the last 15 years. Over that time, partly in response to stakeholder concerns and issues raised in litigation over early RTR rules, EPA has improved or added new approaches for evaluating risk. For example, EPA has improved or added processes for assessing acute, facility- wide, and environmental risks and for identiffing potential environmental justice concerns (through the use of demographics analyses). In addition, the Agency now has 3 screening levels for multipathway pollutants, whereas it only had one screening level in the early risk review actions. EPA now requires more time to complete RTR projects than it did for older actions in large part due to the more complex technical analyses now performed in order to increase assurance that the promulgated rules are technically sound and legally defensible. 23 . In accordance with a 2006 order of a Federal district court, EPA was required to establish standards for area sources, which are smaller sources of FIAPs, under section 112(d) in approximately 8 months. For these sources, EPA established generally available control technology ("GACT") standards pursuant to section 112(dX5), in lieu of maximum achievable control technology ("MACT") 34 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 35 of 37 standards pursuant to section 1L2(d)(2). EPA considers costs and economic impacts when establishing GACT standards, and such standards do not require the same levels of data, time, effort, and analysis as necessary for an RTR review under sections 112(dX6) and 112(Ð(2). See e.g. proposed National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving,T2 Fed. Reg. 16636,16638 (April 4, 2007) (describing process for establishing area source GACT standards pursuant to section 112(dX5)). Due to the differences in the complexity of the necessary analyses and the amount of information needed to complete area source GACT standards, the amount of time needed to complete an area source rulemaking in no way reflects the amount of time needed to complete an RTR rulemaking. SO DECLARED: Dated: llae l,nT 35 Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 36 of 37 Attachment 1. Summary of Time Needed to Complete All RTR Projects Finalized Since 2012 SPPD Grouo Source Cateeorv No. of source catesories Actual Start Datea First Proposed Rule Publication Date Final Rule Publication Date Months between first proposal and final Months between start and final Data Collection FIG Natural Gas Transmission and Storage L 2/4/2O7O 8/23/z9tt 8lt6/2OL2 12.o 30.8 None FIG Oil and Natural Gas Production L 2/4/2OtO 8/23/2017 8/16/2OL2 t2.o 30.8 None MIG Chromium Electroplating 3 tolu20oe tol2t/2oLo 9/ts/2oL2 23.3 36.1 None MIG Steel Pickling L LOltlz}Oe 70/ztlzct0 s/19/2oL2 23.3 36.1 None RCG Pesticide Active lneredient Production L 3/L8/2OL7 L/9/2072 3/27/2074 26.9 36.8 None RCG Polyether Polyols Production 7 3lt8/2017 tlgl20r2 312712014 26.9 36.8 None RCG Polvmers and Resins lV 5 3l!812017 L/912012 3/27/2074 26.9 36.8 None MMG Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 1 4/7s/zOtL tLl4/2OL3 8/7s/2O14 9.5 40.6 Survey RCG Off-Site Waste Recovery Operations t 70/3l20t7 s/30l2oL4 3h8/20]-s 9.7 42.1 Survey RCG Acrylic/ Modacrylic Fibers t 2127/2077 t/9/2014 tol8l2ot4 9.1 44.O None RCG Polvca rbonates Prod uction 7 2127/2077 t/9/2014 7018/20t4 9.1 44.O None RCG Polvmers and Resins lll 1 2/2712Or7 tl9l20t4 70/8/20L4 9.1 44.O None MIG Secondary Lead Smelters L 7/2OO7 s/rsl2ott 1/Os/2Or2 7.6 54 Survey, emission testing MMG MineralWool L LlLs/20LO Ltl2s/2O7L 7/2s/217s 44.7 67.4 Survey, emission testing MMG Wool Fiberslassb 1 rl7s/2010 Ltlzsl2Ùtt 7/29/2}ts 44.7 67.4 Survey, emission testing NRG Pulp and Paper I and lll 2 2/7s/2OO7 6/Lslz0tt s/1L/2Ot2 15.1 67.8 tcR RCG Petroleum Refineries 2 4/LL|ZOLO s/s/2oL4 t2/llz9Ls L9.2 68.7 lCR, emission test¡ng MIG Ferroallovs Prod uction L e/23lz}Oe tu23/2O1L 6/30/2O1s 43.8 70.2 Survey, emission testing MIG Secondary Aluminum 1 s/ts/2oo9 1/3O/2OL2 8/74/2O7s 43.1 72.O lCR, emission testing MIG Primary Aluminum T e/7s/zooe t2/6/2011: LOlts/2O7s 47.O 74.O Survey, em ission testing MMG Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacturing 7 s/tsl2oo8 tL/7/2Ot4 8/te/201s 9.5 88.4 Survey, emission testing MMG Phosphoric Acid Production t shs/2008 7t/7/2014 8/Le/2O7s 9.5 88.4 Su rvey, emission testing MMG Aerospace t 3/29/2OO7 2/17120Ls t2/7/207s 9.8 105.8 lCR, emission testing a Start dates estimated based on documented early activities on projects for each group. b On July 29,2O!5, EPA issued a final rule for the Wool Fiberglass source category. Upon review, EPA determined that the final rule did not completely fulfill the intent of the consent decree. The parties subsequently agreed to a deadline of Decemb er !7,2016, for EPA to ¡ssue an additional final rule addressing the outstandíng issues. Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-4 Filed 09/26/16 Page 37 of 37 EXHIBIT B Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SIERRA CLUB PLAINTIFF v. NO. 4:14CV00643 JLH REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency DEFENDANT STATE OF ARKANSAS INTERVENOR OPINION AND ORDER As a part of the Clean Air Act, Congress has declared as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility, or regional haze, in certain national parks and wilderness areas, which are known as “Class I areas.” 42 U.S.C. § 7491 and § 7492. In addition, the “interstate transport” provision of the Act requires that state plans contain provisions adequate to prohibit in-state emissions from impairing visibility in Class I areas in other states. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Like other environmental programs established by Congress, the adoption of plans to accomplish these regional haze goals is a venture in “cooperative federalism” whereby “the EPA directs states to submit state implementation plans ‘to assure reasonable progress toward’ the [Clean Air Act’s] national visibility goals.” Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 759 F.3d 969, 971 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas, 45 Fed. Reg. 80,084, 80,086 (Dec. 2, 1980)). If a state fails to make a required submission, or if the EPA disapproves a state implementation plan in whole or in part, the EPA “shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years” unless the state corrects the deficiency and the EPA approves the revised Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 8 state implementation plan before promulgating a federal implementation plan. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1). On March 12, 2012, the EPA disapproved in part a revision to the Arkansas state implementation plan regarding the regional haze requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(B) and its regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 14,604 (Mar. 12, 2012). The EPA stated in that final rule that within twenty-four months it would either approve a state implementation plan or implement a federal implementation plan. Id. at 14,606. To date, the EPA has not received a revised state implementation plan from Arkansas, nor has it promulgated a federal implementation plan. On August 6, 2014, Sierra Club commenced this action in the Northern District of California seeking (1) a declaration that the EPA’s failure to promulgate a regional haze federal implementation plan for Arkansas constituted a failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty and (2) an injunction requiring the EPA to issue such a plan for Arkansas by a date certain. Document #1. On October 30, 2014, the Northern District of California ordered that this action be transferred to this district. On February 11, 2015, the EPA filed a notice of lodging of a proposed consent decree. Document #30. The proposed consent decree provided that the EPA would either approve a revised state implementation plan from Arkansas or promulgate a federal implementation plan no later than December 15, 2015. Document #30-1 at 4. The EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of the proposed consent decree and requested comments. After the State of Arkansas requested, and the EPA granted, an extension of time to submit comments, the EPA gave notice to the Court that it would be unable to meet the December 15 deadline and would therefore not be moving for an entry of the proposed consent decree in its present form. Document #57 at 2. Instead, the EPA 2 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 8 stated that it would enter into negotiations with Sierra Club and the State of Arkansas regarding a new deadline for final action. Id. The State of Arkansas not only submitted comments on the proposed consent decree as a part of the regulatory process, but it also filed a motion to intervene in this action. In addition, two motions to intervene were filed by private parties. The first motion to intervene was filed by Nucor Steel-Arkansas, a division of Nucor Corporation, and Nucor-Yamato Steel Company. The other motion to intervene was filed by Balanced Energy Arkansas, which “is an unincorporated association of member companies and organizations with operations and/or [sic] vital economic interests in Arkansas that are dedicated to keeping energy in Arkansas economical, stable, and reliable.” Document #39 at 1. The Court granted the State’s motion to intervene and denied the motions to intervene filed by Nucor and Balanced Energy Arkansas. Nucor has filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay this action pending appeal. Sierra Club and the EPA have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Sierra Club asks the Court to establish April 15, 2016, as the deadline by which the EPA must approve a state implementation plan or adopt a federal implementation plan. The EPA concedes liability but argues that the deadline should be August 31, 2016. The State has moved to dismiss Sierra Club’s complaint for lack of standing. I. NUCOR’S MOTION TO STAY In deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal, the Court considers whether the party moving for a stay has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits; whether the moving party will be irreparably injured absent a stay; whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and the public interest. Brady v. Nat’l Football 3 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 8 League, 640 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2011). Here, Nucor has failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Nucor’s arguments relate to the substance of a potential federal implementation plan, not the deadline by which the EPA must issue such a plan, which is the only issue before the Court. Nucor has the right to make public comments and, if necessary, seek individual review of the EPA’s administrative action. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b). Nothing in this action threatens Nucor’s potential objections to any final action that the EPA might take. Nucor will not be irreparably injured absent a stay. And, the public interest favors requiring the EPA to perform its nondiscretionary duty to approve a state implementation plan or adopt a federal implementation plan, and staying this action pending an appeal would be contrary to that public interest. II. THE STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SIERRA CLUB’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING For an association to have standing to bring suit on behalf of its members, its members must have standing to sue individually, the association must be seeking to protect interests that are germane to its purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires its members to participate directly in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 2441, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977). The State of Arkansas denies that Sierra Club’s members have standing to sue individually. Three elements are required to meet the constitutional minimum for standing: (1) an injury in fact; (2) causation between the injury and conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood, not merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2137, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). An injury in fact must be concrete and particularized as well as actual or imminent. Id. at 560, 112 S. Ct. at 2136. Standing can be based on recreational or aesthetic interests. Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549, 557 (8th 4 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 8 Cir. 2010). The State of Arkansas argues that no injury exists based upon its own assessment that visibility in Class I federal areas is improving. Document #71 at 7-8. However, the injury in this case occurred when the EPA failed to comply with the Clean Air Act’s requirement that it promulgate a federal implementation plan for Arkansas under 42 U.S.C. § 7410. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that Sierra Club met the injury-in-fact requirement when the EPA failed to issue a required environmental impact statement). Here, the injury-in-fact is the increased risk of harm to aesthetic enjoyment of the parks by the failure to adopt a plan to prevent haze. Id. This injury is traceable to EPA action, or lack of action, and is redressable by the establishment of a deadline for when the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan. Even if, as the State argues, visibility is improving, that fact does not mean that no injury has occurred. As noted, the EPA disapproved portions of Arkansas’s state implementation plan as failing to meet the requirements of the regional haze program. The deficiencies have not been remedied though three and one-half years have passed. The EPA’s failure during that time to perform its nondiscretionary duty to approve a state implementation plan or adopt a federal implementation plan creates a risk that visibility is less than it would be if a plan had been adopted in Class I areas. Therefore, Sierra Club has standing. III. SIERRA CLUB AND THE EPA’S CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT “Because [the EPA] does not contest the issue of liability, the entry of summary judgment is appropriate, and it remains only for the Court to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy.” Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46, 52 (D.C.D.C. 2006) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). When doing so, the Court should consider the EPA’s budgetary and manpower constraints as well as time needed to understand the 5 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 5 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 8 intricacies of the plan. Id. at 712. Sierra Club requests that the EPA be ordered to perform its duty by April 15, 2016. Document #65 at 16. The EPA requests that the deadline be set for August 31, 2016 because of resource constraints and the complexity of the issues. Document #75 at 3. The EPA has presented legitimate concerns regarding its ability to meet an April deadline in a declaration by Samuel J. Coleman, Deputy Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6. Document #75-1. Coleman has submitted a lengthy declaration, the facts of which are not contested. In that declaration, Coleman explains Region 6's staff and workload, the regional haze program requirements, the interstate visibility transport program requirements, the actions taken in Region 6 to date to approve or disapprove of state implementation plans or promulgate federal implementation plans for regional haze and interstate visibility transport, the history of Region 6's actions vis-a-vis Arkansas with respect to regional haze and interstate visibility transport, the substantial work that remains to be done to address all of the comments and to meet all of the requirements for taking final agency action, and the interim deadlines that must be met. In the end, Coleman concludes, “[t]aking final action by August 31, 2016, is the most expeditious schedule that EPA Region 6 can meet given current resource and budgetary constraints.” Id. at 25 ¶41. The facts stated by Coleman in his declaration support that conclusion. CONCLUSION Nucor’s motion to stay this action pending appeal is DENIED. Document #84. The State of Arkansas’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing is DENIED. Document #70. Sierra Club’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Document #64. The EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Document #75. The EPA’s motion to strike the State’s response to Sierra Club’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Document 6 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 6 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 8 #81. The deadline by which the EPA must approve a state implementation plan or promulgate a federal implementation plan is August 31, 2016. A final decree so ordering will be entered separately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2015. J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 Case 4:14-cv-00643-JLH Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 7 of 7Case 1:16-cv-0 3 -CRC Docu ent 19-5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT C Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 11 Skip Switch Client | My Briefcase | Order Runner Documents | Lexis Advance | Lexis.com | Sign Out | Welcome, Eileen McDonough LexisNexis CourtLink Single Search - with Terms and Connectors Enter keywords - Search Search Info Skip My CourtLinkSearchDockets & DocumentsTrackAlertStrategic ProfilesBreaking ComplaintsMy AccountCourt Info Dockets & Documents - Online Arrived > Case View Get First Case Get Previous Case Item 5 of 13 Get Next Case Get Last Case Docket Tools This docket was retrieved from the court on 9/26/2016 Get Updated Docket CourtLink can alert you when there is new activity in this case Track Docket Activity Start a new search based on the characteristics of this case Search for Similar CourtLink alerts you when there are new cases that match characteristics of this case Set Alert for Similar Dockets [Add to My Briefcase] [Email this Docket] [Printer Friendly Format] Additional resources for cases like this may be found in our LexisNexis Practice Area communities. Docket US District Court Civil Docket U.S. District - California Northern (Oakland) 4:09cv152 Sierra Club v. Jackson This case was retrieved from the court on Monday, September 26, 2016 Update Now Date Filed: 01/13/2009 Assigned To: Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong Referred To: Magistrate Judge James Larson Nature of suit: Other Statutory Actions (890) Cause: Declaratory Judgement Lead Docket: None Other Docket: None Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Class Code: CLOSED Closed: 09/26/2011 Statute: 28:2201 Jury Demand: None Demand Amount: $0 NOS Description: Other Statutory Actions Litigants Attorneys Organize My Briefcase Retrieving Briefcase - one moment please ... Page 1 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 11 Sierra Club Plaintiff Emma C. Cheuse LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Suite 702 Washington , DC 20036 USA 202-667-4500 Ext. 5220 Email:Echeuse@earthjustice.Org James S. Pew LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Suite 702 Washington , DC 20036 USA 202-667-4500 Ext.5214 Email:Jpew@earthjustice.Org Sarah Helen Burt LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Earthjustice 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco , CA 94111 USA 415-217-2000 Fax: 415-217-2040 Email:Sburt@earthjustice.Org Lisa P. Jackson Administrator, United States Environmental Agency [Term: 11/13/2013] Defendant Leslie M. Hill LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Department of Justice Enrd/Eds P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA 202-514-0375 Email:Leslie.Hill@usdoj.Gov Adam J. Katz ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED US Department of Justice P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA 202-514-2689 Email:Adam.Katz@usdoj.Gov Rochelle Leigh Russell [Term: 01/25/2012] United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Envrironmental Defense Section 301 Howard Street, Suite 1050 San Francisco , CA 94105 USA 415-744-6566 Fax: 415-744-6476 Email:Rochelle.Russell@usdoj.Gov Gina Mccarthy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, in her official capacity Defendant Leslie M. Hill LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Department of Justice Enrd/Eds P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA 202-514-0375 Email:Leslie.Hill@usdoj.Gov Adam J. Katz ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED US Department of Justice P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA 202-514-2689 Email:Adam.Katz@usdoj.Gov Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. Intervenor Dft Erin Alysa Smart [Term: 01/31/2011] Bingham McCutchen LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco , CA 94111 USA (415) 393-2531 Fax: (415) 393-2286 Email:Erin.Smart@bingham.Com Page 2 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 11 Michael B. Wigmore PRO HAC VICE [Term: 01/31/2011] Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, Nw Washington , DC 20006 USA 202-373-6000 Fax: 202-373-6001 Email:Michael.Wigmore@bingham.Com Robert N. Steinwurtzel PRO HAC VICE [Term: 01/31/2011] Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, N.W. Washington , DC 20006 USA 202-424-7500 Fax: 202-424-7643 Email:Rsteinwurtzel@bakerlaw.Com Ryan D. Fischbach ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Baker & Hostetler LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles , CA 90025-0509 USA 310/820-8800 Email:Rfischbach@bakerlaw.Com Doe Run Resources Corporation, The doing business as Doe Run Company, The Intervenor Dft John Stewart Poulos LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 2020 W. El Camino Avenue Suite 700 Sacramento , CA 95833 USA 916-564-5400 Fax: 916-564-5444 Email:John.Poulos@lewisbrisbois.Com Andrew Daniel Bluth ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2600 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento , CA 95816 USA (916) 329-4700 Fax: (916) 441-3583 Email:Andrew.Bluth@pillsburylaw.Com Dennis Lane PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1150 18th Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington , DC 20036-3816 USA 202-785-9100 Fax: 202-785-9163 Stacy J. Stotts PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1201 Walnut Street Suite 800 Kansas City , MO 64106 USA 816-842-8600 Fax: 816-691-3495 American Forest & Paper Association Intervenor Martin James Lawler ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lawler & Lawler 50 Francisco Street Suite 118 San Francisco , CA 94133 USA (415)391-2010 Fax: 415-781-6181 Email:Mlawler@aboutvisas.Com Robert N. Steinwurtzel PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, N.W. Washington , DC 20006 Page 3 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 11 Documents USA 202-424-7500 Fax: 202-424-7643 Email:Rsteinwurtzel@bakerlaw.Com Russell S. Frye PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED FryeLaw PLLC 1101 30th St., N.W. Suite 220 Washington , DC 20007-3769 USA 202-572-8267 Fax: 866-850-5198 Email:Rfrye@fryelaw.Com Ryan D. Fischbach ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Baker & Hostetler LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles , CA 90025-0509 USA 310/820-8800 Email:Rfischbach@bakerlaw.Com The Doe Run Resources Corporation Intervenor Andrew Daniel Bluth LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2600 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento , CA 95816 USA (916) 329-4700 Fax: (916) 441-3583 Email:Andrew.Bluth@pillsburylaw.Com John Stewart Poulos LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 2020 W. El Camino Avenue Suite 700 Sacramento , CA 95833 USA 916-564-5400 Fax: 916-564-5444 Email:John.Poulos@lewisbrisbois.Com Dennis Lane PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1150 18th Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington , DC 20036-3816 USA 202-785-9100 Fax: 202-785-9163 Stacy J. Stotts , PRO HAC VICE;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1201 Walnut Street Suite 800 Kansas City , MO 64106 USA 816-842-8600 Fax: 816-691-3495 Email: Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap Items 1 to 126 of 126 Availability No. Date Proceeding Text Filter Source Online 1 01/13/2009 COMPLAINT/ issued summons against Stephen L. Johnson ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 44611003030.). Filed bySierra Club. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/18/2009: # 1 Summons Issued as to Michael B. Mukasey, # 2 Summons Issued as to Stephen L. Johnson, # 3 Summons Issued as to Joseph P. Russoniello) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2009) Online 2 01/13/2009 Certificate of Interested Entities by Sierra Club re 1 Complaint (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009) Online 3 01/13/2009 MOTION for attorney Emma C. Cheuse leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611003032.) filed by Sierra Club. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009) Online 4 01/13/2009 MOTION for attorney James S. Pew leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number Page 4 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 11 44611003031.) filed by Sierra Club. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009) Online 5 01/13/2009 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/15/2009. Case Management Conference set for 4/22/2009 01:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/13/09. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009) Runner 01/13/2009 CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009) Online 6 01/15/2009 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (James Pew) (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009) Online 7 01/15/2009 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (Emma Cheuse) (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009) Online 8 02/09/2009 NOTICE of Appearance by Rochelle Leigh Russell (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009) Online 9 02/09/2009 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Stephen L. Johnson. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009) Online 10 02/10/2009 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2009) (Entered: 02/10/2009) Online 11 02/11/2009 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/11/09. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009) Online 12 02/12/2009 CLERKS NOTICE re: Plaintiff's Failure to E-File 1 . (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009) Online 13 02/23/2009 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 4/29/2009 03:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/23/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) Modified on 2/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/23/2009) Online 14 03/03/2009 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Russell S. Frye ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611003245.) filed by American Forest & Paper Association. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2009) (Entered: 03/03/2009) Online 15 03/03/2009 First MOTION to Intervene, filed by American Forest & Paper Association. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Timoth Hunt in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 2 Supplement Proposed Answer)(Lawler, Martin) (Filed on 3/3/2009) Modified on 3/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2009) Free 16 03/04/2009 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Answer Deadline and to Continue Initial Discovery, ADR Requirements, and Case Management Conference, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 3/4/2009) Modified on 3/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2009) Online 17 03/05/2009 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 9/9/2009 02:30 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 3/4/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009) Online 18 03/05/2009 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 14 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Russell S. Frye (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009) Online 19 03/05/2009 NOTICE of Appearance by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 3/5/2009) Modified on 3/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2009) Online 20 03/05/2009 MOTION for Leave to Intervene filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Earl Cornette in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 3 Declaration of Erin A. Smart in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Proposed Order) (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 3/5/2009) Modified on 3/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2009) Online 21 03/05/2009 NOTICE of Manual Filing re Applications for Admission of Attorney Michael B. Wigmore and Robert N. Steinwurtzel by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 3/5/2009) Modified on 3/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2009) Online 22 03/06/2009 CLERKS NOTICE: That the Motion Hearing is CONTINUED to 05/05/09 at 1:00 PM, re 15 Unopposed Motion to Intervene (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2009) Modified on 3/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2009) Online 23 03/06/2009 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Michael B. Wigmore ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611003258.) filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009) Online 24 03/06/2009 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Robert N. Steinwurtzel ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611003258.) filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009) Runner 03/06/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 15 Motion to Intervene . Motion Hearing set for 5/5/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009) Online 25 03/10/2009 Response re 15 Motion to Intervene filed by Lisa P. Jackson. (Related document(s) 15 ) (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009) Online 26 03/10/2009 Response re 20 Motion to Intervene filed by Lisa P. Jackson. (Related document(s) 20 ) (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009) Online 27 03/11/2009 CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing to 5/5/2009 at 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2009) Modified on 3/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2009) Online 28 03/11/2009 Proposed Order re 15 First MOTION to Intervene of American Forest & Paper Association, Inc. by Page 5 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 11 American Forest & Paper Association. (Frye, Russell) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009) Online 29 03/12/2009 AMENDED Proposed Order re 20 Motion to Intervene filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. replacing Docket 20-8 (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 3/12/2009) Modified on 3/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2009) Online 30 03/13/2009 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 23 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Michael B. Wigmore (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009) Online 31 03/13/2009 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 24 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Robert N. Steinwurtzel (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009) Online 32 03/23/2009 Statement of Non-Opposition re 20 MOTION to Intervene filed bySierra Club. (Related document(s) 20 ) (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 3/23/2009) (Entered: 03/23/2009) Online 33 03/23/2009 Statement of Non-Opposition re 15 First MOTION to Intervene of American Forest & Paper Association, Inc. filed bySierra Club. (Related document(s) 15 ) (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 3/23/2009) (Entered: 03/23/2009) Online 34 04/27/2009 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, GRANTING 15 Motion to Intervene and GRANTING 20 Motion to Intervene. The motion hearing set for 05/05/09 is VACATED (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2009) Modified on 4/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/2009) Online 35 05/01/2009 ANSWER to Complaint byAssociation of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 5/1/2009) (Entered: 05/01/2009) Online 36 05/01/2009 ANSWER to Complaint byAmerican Forest & Paper Association. (Frye, Russell) (Filed on 5/1/2009) (Entered: 05/01/2009) Online 37 05/18/2009 NOTICE of Change of Phone Number, filed by Lisa P. Jackson (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 5/18/2009) Modified on 5/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2009) Free 38 07/16/2009 Second STIPULATION to Continue Answer Deadline, Initial Discovery, ADR Requirements and Case Management Conference with Proposed Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club, . (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 7/16/2009) Modified on 7/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2009) Free 39 07/17/2009 STIPULATION AND ORDER: That the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to 12/9/2009 at 02:30 PM., via Telephone. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 7/17/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2009) Free 40 10/15/2009 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE ANSWER DEADLINE, INITIAL DISCOVERY, ADR REQUIREMENTS, AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE and [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON by Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, and Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 10/15/2009) Modified on 10/16/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2009) Online 41 10/20/2009 STIPULATION AND ORDER: That the Case Management Conference has been CONTINUED to 3/10/2010 02:30 PM., via Telephone. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Arsmtrong, on 10/19/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) Modified on 10/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/2009) Online 42 10/20/2009 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE IGNORE*** CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10/28/2009 03:45 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) Modified on 10/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/2009) Online 43 01/29/2010 ANSWER to Complaint by Lisa P. Jackson. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010) Online 44 02/10/2010 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Lisa P. Jackson (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 45 02/10/2010 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Sierra Club (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 46 02/10/2010 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d), Sierra Club, Lisa P. Jackson (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 47 02/10/2010 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 48 02/10/2010 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, American Forest & Paper Association (Frye, Russell) (Filed on 2/10/2010) Modified on 2/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 49 02/18/2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sierra Club re 1 Complaint, (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 2/18/2010) (Entered: 02/18/2010) Online 50 02/22/2010 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 3/5/10 at 10:30 a.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2010) (Entered: 02/22/2010) Online 51 02/24/2010 Certificate of Interested Entities by American Forest & Paper Association (Frye, Russell) (Filed on 2/24/2010) (Entered: 02/24/2010) Online 52 02/24/2010 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order, filed by Sierra Club, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Lisa P. Jackson. (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 2/24/2010) Modified on 2/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2010) Runner 03/05/2010 ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by HAH on 3/5/10. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2010) (Entered: 03/05/2010) Online 53 03/10/2010 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 4/29/2010 at 03:15 PM., via Telephone. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 3/9/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2010) Modified on 3/11/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2010) Runner 03/10/2010 ***Deadlines terminated. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2010) (Entered: 03/11/2010) Free 54 04/13/2010 NOTICE of Settlement and Request for Continuance of Case Management Conference, filed by Lisa P. Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010) Page 6 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 11 Online 55 04/14/2010 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 7/1/2010 03:00 PM., via Telphone. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 4/14/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2010) Modified on 4/15/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2010) Free 56 06/17/2010 Joint MOTION to Continue Case Management Conference to Finalize Settlement filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 6/17/2010) Modified on 6/18/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2010) Free 57 06/18/2010 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: That the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to 09/02/10 at 3:00 PM. Motions terminated: 56 Motion. Case Management Conference set for 9/2/2010 03:00 PM. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 6/18/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2010) Modified on 6/21/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2010) Free 58 07/06/2010 NOTICE of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree, filed by Lisa P. Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 7/6/2010) Modified on 7/7/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2010) Free 59 08/23/2010 JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR 9/02/2010 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 8/23/2010) Modified on 8/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2010) Online 60 08/26/2010 CLERKS NOTICE: Case Management Conference set for 9/2/2010 03:15 PM., via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2010) Modified on 8/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2010) Online 61 08/26/2010 UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Lisa P. Jackson, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit February 24, 2010 Case Management Statement)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 8/26/2010) Modified on 8/27/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2010) Online 62 09/02/2010 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 9/2/2010 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 9/2/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/6/2010 03:45 PM. via Telephone. Parties to file Status Report by 09/15/10; Joint Case Management Conference Statement due (10) ten-days before next CMC. (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/2/2010) Modified on 9/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2010) Free 63 09/15/2010 STATUS REPORT by Lisa P. Jackson. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/15/2010) (Entered: 09/15/2010) Online 64 09/27/2010 UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/27/2010) Modified on 9/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2010) Free 65 09/27/2010 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. Motion Hearing set for 11/2/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Consent Decree)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/27/2010) Modified on 9/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2010) Online 66 09/27/2010 STIPULATION to Refer Certain Matters to a Magistrate Judge for Findings and Recommendations with Proposed Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/27/2010) Modified on 9/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2010) Online 67 09/30/2010 STIPULATION AND ORDER: that certain matters be referred to a Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation re 65 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/30/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2010) Modified on 10/1/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2010) Online 68 10/01/2010 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10/6/2010 02:30 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2010) (Entered: 10/01/2010) Free 69 10/05/2010 Statement of Non-Opposition re 65 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.. (Related document(s) 65 ) (Smart, Erin) (Filed on 10/5/2010) Modified on 10/6/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2010) Online 72 10/06/2010 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/6/2010 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong's Law Clerk. Motion for Order Approving Consent Judgment Referred to Magistrate Judge James Larson for Report and Recommendation (Date Filed: 10/6/2010). (Court Reporter: Not Reporter) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/6/2010) Modified on 10/12/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2010) Online 70 10/07/2010 Statement of Non-Opposition re 65 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed byAmerican Forest & Paper Association. (Related document(s) 65 ) (Frye, Russell) (Filed on 10/7/2010) (Entered: 10/07/2010) Online 71 10/07/2010 ORDER FOR STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING re 67 Stipulation and Order, Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. Status Conference set for 11/10/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge James Larson, on 10/7/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2010) Modified on 10/8/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2010) Runner 10/07/2010 Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/10/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2010) (Entered: 10/07/2010) Online 73 10/21/2010 STIPULATION to Govern Proceedings, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 10/21/2010) Modified on 10/22/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/21/2010) Runner 11/02/2010 ***Deadlines terminated re Motion Hearing as to 65 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2010) (Entered: 11/05/2010) Online 74 11/04/2010 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GOVERN PROCEEDINGS Signed by Magistrate Judge James Larson, on 11/04/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2010) Modified on 11/5/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/2010) Minute Entry: Status Conference held. Stipulation and Order to Govern Proceedings previously filed. The Page 7 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 11 Online 75 11/10/2010 Court will issue a report and recommendation to the district judge. (Date Filed: 11/10/2010). (FTR: 10:48 -10:51) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/10/2010) (Entered: 11/10/2010) Online 76 12/22/2010 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that District Court Grant Parties Joint Request for Entry of Consent Judgment re 65 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. Objections to R&R due by 1/5/2011. Signed by Judge James Larson on 12/22/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010) Runner 01/05/2011 ***Deadlines terminated re Objections to R&R Deadline as to 76 Report and Recommendation (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011) (Entered: 01/24/2011) Online 77 01/21/2011 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel with Proposed Order, filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Substitution of Attorney)(Fischbach, Ryan) (Filed on 1/21/2011) Modified on 1/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/2011) Online 78 01/21/2011 NOTICE of Change of Address, filed by Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. (Fischbach, Ryan) (Filed on 1/21/2011) Modified on 1/24/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/2011) Online 79 01/31/2011 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY AND ORDER: That Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. substitutes Ryan D. Fischbach as attorney in place of Erin Alysa Smart and Michael B. Wigmore. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 01/31/11. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2011) (Entered: 02/01/2011) Online 80 05/19/2011 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Dennis Lane ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 44611007000.) filed by Doe Run Resources Corporation, The. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2011) (Entered: 05/19/2011) Online 81 05/19/2011 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Stacy J. Stotts ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 44611007000.) filed by Doe Run Resources Corporation, The. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2011) (Entered: 05/19/2011) Online 82 05/19/2011 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Proposed Intervenor Doe Run Resources Corporation's Motion to Intervene; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by The Doe Run Resources Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dennis Lane in Support of Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Proposed Intervenor Doe Run Resources Corporation's Motion to Intervene, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Proposed Intervenor Doe Run Resources Corporation's Motion to Intervene, # 3 Proof of Service) (Bluth, Andrew) (Filed on 5/19/2011) Modified on 5/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2011) Online 83 05/19/2011 MOTION to Intervene filed by The Doe Run Resources Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2011 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 3 Exhibit B to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Intervene, # 4 Declaration of Stacy J. Stotts of the Doe Run Company's Motion for Leave to Intervene, # 5 Declaration of Louis J. Marucheau in Support of the Doe Run Company's Motion for Leave to Intervene, # 6 Proposed Order Granting Intervenor Doe Run Resources Corporation's Motion to Intervene, # 7 Proof of Service)(Bluth, Andrew) (Filed on 5/19/2011) (Entered: 05/19/2011) Online 84 05/20/2011 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 82 Ex Parte Motion Shortening Time to Hear Proposed Intervenor Doe Run Resources Corporation's Motion to Intervene. Opposition due by 06/21/11; Reply due 06/28/11. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 05/20/11 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2011) Modified on 5/23/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2011) Online 86 05/25/2011 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 80 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Dennis Lane (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011) (Entered: 05/27/2011) Online 87 05/25/2011 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 81 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Stacy J. Stotts (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011) (Entered: 05/27/2011) Online 85 05/27/2011 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam J. Katz (Katz, Adam) (Filed on 5/27/2011) (Entered: 05/27/2011) Free 88 06/10/2011 STIPULATION to Modify the Proposed Consent Decree re 65 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Katz, Adam) (Filed on 6/10/2011) Modified on 6/13/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2011) Online 89 06/21/2011 Memorandum in Opposition re 83 Motion to Intervene filed by Lisa P. Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Katz, Adam) (Filed on 6/21/2011) Modified on 6/22/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2011) Online 90 06/21/2011 Memorandum in Opposition re 83 Motion to Intervene filed by Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 6/21/2011) Modified on 6/22/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2011) Online 91 06/28/2011 Reply Memorandum re 83 Motion to Intervene filed by Doe Run Resources Corporation, The. (Bluth, Andrew) (Filed on 6/28/2011) Modified on 6/29/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/2011) Free 92 08/11/2011 STIPULATION (SECOND) TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE (DKT. 65) by Lisa P. Jackson. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 8/11/2011) (Entered: 08/11/2011) Online 93 08/30/2011 MOTION For September 13 Hearing To Be Held By Telephone Conference filed by Sierra Club. Responses due by 9/13/2011. Replies due by 9/20/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 8/30/2011) (Entered: 08/30/2011) Online 94 09/06/2011 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re 83 Motion to Intervene. Motion Hearing CONTINUED to 10/4/2011 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/6/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011) Modified on 9/7/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2011) Online 95 09/26/2011 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 76 Report and Recommendations. Motions terminated: 93 Motion for 09/13/11 Hearing to be held by Telephone Conference, 65 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment, 83 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/23/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2011) Modified on 9/27/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Page 8 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 11 (Entered: 09/26/2011) Free 96 09/26/2011 CONSENT DECREE ORDER. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/26/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2011) (Entered: 09/26/2011) Free 97 10/24/2011 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (no action by Court required), filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 10/24/2011) Modified on 10/25/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2011) Free 98 10/31/2011 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (no action required by the Court), filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 10/31/2011) Modified on 11/1/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2011) Free 99 12/19/2011 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only - no action required by the Court), filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 12/19/2011) Modified on 12/20/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2011) Online 100 01/23/2012 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Lisa P. Jackson. Responses due by 2/6/2012. Replies due by 2/13/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Russell, Rochelle) (Filed on 1/23/2012) Modified on 1/24/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2012) Online 101 01/25/2012 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 100 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Rochelle Leigh Russell terminated (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012) Modified on 1/26/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2012) Online 102 05/10/2012 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only - no action required by the Court) filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Katz, Adam) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012) Online 103 05/10/2012 NOTICE of Counsel Contact Information Change (notice only - no action required by the Court), filed by Sierra Club (Cheuse, Emma) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modified on 5/11/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012) Online 104 07/16/2012 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Katz, Adam) (Filed on 7/16/2012) Modified on 7/17/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2012) Free 105 08/28/2012 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only - no action required by the Court), filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Katz, Adam) (Filed on 8/28/2012) Modified on 8/29/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2012) Free 106 10/24/2012 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only - no action required by the Court), filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 10/24/2012) Modified on 10/25/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2012) Free 107 11/28/2012 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree re 96 Order filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 11/28/2012) Modified on 11/29/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2012) Free 108 12/06/2012 JOINT STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree re 96 Order filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 12/6/2012) Modified on 12/7/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 12/06/2012) Online 109 11/13/2013 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required) re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 11/13/2013) Modified on 11/14/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2013) Free 110 01/27/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 1/27/2014) Modified on 1/28/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/27/2014) Free 111 03/12/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required) re 96 Order filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 3/12/2014) Modified on 3/13/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2014) Online 112 04/11/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 4/11/2014) Modified on 4/14/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2014) Free 113 05/28/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required) re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 5/28/2014) Modified on 5/29/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2014) Free 114 06/24/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action by Court required) re 96 Order. filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 6/24/2014) Modified on 6/25/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/24/2014) Free 115 08/07/2014 STIPULATION Modify Consent Decree - Notice Only, No Action Required by Court re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 8/7/2014) Modified on 8/8/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2014) Free 116 12/05/2014 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree re 96 Order, filed by Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club. (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 12/5/2014) Modified on 12/8/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2014) Free 117 06/16/2015 STIPULATION TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREE re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 6/16/2015) Modified on 6/17/2015 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/16/2015) Free 118 07/20/2015 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action required by Court) re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 7/20/2015) Modified on 7/21/2015 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2015) Free 119 09/25/2015 STIPULATION to Modify Consent Decree (notice only, no action required by Court) re 96 Order, filed by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy, Sierra Club (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 9/25/2015) Modified on 9/25/2015 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2015) Items 1 to 126 of 126 Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap Page 9 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 11 | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Pricing | Privacy | Customer Support - 1-888-311-1966 | Copyright © 2016 LexisNexis®. All rights reserved. Back to top of page LexisNexis® Page 10 of 10LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Documents - Case View 9/26/2016mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\LexisNexis CourtLink - Dockets & Docume... Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-6 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT D Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-7 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST ) TOXICS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:15-cv-00512-TSC ) v. ) ) GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER Upon consideration of the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”), and the memoranda and exhibits in support of and in opposition thereto, it is hereby ordered that EPA is to complete its obligations under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2)(A) pursuant to the attached schedule for the 20 source categories identified therein. ________________________________ HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN DATED: ____________________ Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 31-7 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 26 364 CR 19 il 9 6 2 3 2 Proposal and Final Rule Dates for the 20 RTR Source Categories Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Integrated Iron and Steel 8/16/2017 11/6/2018 Auto and Light Duty 8/30/2017 11/21/2018 Misc. Metal Parts 10/4/2017 12/10/2018 Plastic Parts 10/4/2017 12/10/2018 Hydrochloric Acid Production 7/12/2018 7/11/2019 Engine Test Cells/Stands 8/29/2018 8/21/2019 Asphalt Processing & Roofing Manufacturing 9/26/2018 9/18/2019 Cellulose Products Manufacturing 10/10/2018 12/18/2019 Site Remediation 10/24/2018 1/15/2020 Ethylene Processes 1/17/2019 5/14/2020 Metal Can 12/5/2019 11/26/2020 Metal Coil 12/5/2019 11/26/2020 Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 2/19/2020 2/17/2021 Boat Manufacturing - MACT 2/26/2020 5/19/2021 Paper and Other Web 4/1/2020 7/28/2021 Reinforced Plastics and Composites Production 4/15/2020 7/7/2021 Stationary Combustion Turbines 5/20/2020 9/15/2021 Organic Liquids Distribution 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 Misc. Organic NESHAP (MON) 6/17/2020 10/13/2021 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 7/22/2020 11/17/2021 Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 31-7 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 26 364 CR 19 il 9 6 3 3 EXHIBIT E Case 1:16-cv-00364-CRC Document 19-8 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 5 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action 1:15-cv-00512-TSC [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claims in this suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). Plaintiffs requested an order declaring that Defendant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has failed to perform certain actions required by the Clean Air Act and ordering Defendant to perform each required action by a date certain, and all other appropriate relief. Having considered Plaintiffs’ motion and response thereto, EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and all related filings, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and thus that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, summary judgment is hereby ENTERED in Plaintiffs’ favor, and Defendant EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECLARED, AND DECREED that Defendant is in violation of the Clean Air Act due to the unlawful failures (1) to take actions fulfilling its non-discretionary duties under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) to review and either to revise or to issue a final determination not to revise the hazardous air emission standards Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23-1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 46 364 CR 19 8 il 09 26 6 2 5 2 for the below-listed major air toxics source categories; and (2) to take actions fulfilling its non- discretionary duties under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2) to promulgate either health or environmental risk-based emission standards or a final determination that such standards are not required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect for the below-listed major air toxics source categories: 1. Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, 66 Fed. Reg. 19,006 (Apr. 12, 2001) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart GGGG); 2. Boat Manufacturing, 66 Fed. Reg. 44,218 (Aug. 22, 2001) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart VVVV); 3. Surface Coating of Metal Coil, 67 Fed. Reg. 39,794 (June 10, 2002) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart SSSS); 4. Cellulose Products Manufacturing, 67 Fed. Reg. 40,044 (June 11, 2002) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart UUUU); 5. Generic MACT II - Ethylene Production, 67 Fed. Reg. 46,258 (July 12, 2002) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart YY, XX, UU); 6. Paper and Other Web Coating, 67 Fed. Reg. 72,330 (Dec. 4, 2002) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart JJJJ); 7. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 68 Fed. Reg. 2227 (Jan. 16, 2003) (40 C.F.R Part 63 Subpart AAAA); 8. Hydrochloric Acid Production, 68 Fed. Reg. 19,076 (Apr. 17, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart NNNNN); 9. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, 68 Fed. Reg. 19,375 (Apr. 21, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart WWWW); Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23-1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 46 364 CR 19 8 il 09 26 6 3 5 3 10. Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, 68 Fed. Reg. 22,976 (Apr. 29, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart LLLLL); 11. Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing, 68 Fed. Reg. 27,646 (May 20, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart FFFFF); 12. Engine Test Cells/Stands, 68 Fed. Reg. 28,774 (May 27, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart PPPPP); 13. Site Remediation, 68 Fed. Reg. 58,172 (Oct. 8, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart GGGGG); 14. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, 68 Fed. Reg. 63,852 (Nov. 10, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart FFFF); 15. Surface Coating of Metal Cans, 68 Fed. Reg. 64,432 (Nov. 13, 2003) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart KKKK); 16. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, 69 Fed. Reg. 130 (Jan. 2, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart MMMM); 17. Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), 69 Fed. Reg. 5038 (Feb. 3, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart EEEE); 18. Stationary Combustion Turbines, 69 Fed. Reg. 10,512 (Mar. 5, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart YYYY); 19. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, 69 Fed. Reg. 20,968 (Apr. 19, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart PPPP); 20. Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, 69 Fed. Reg. 22,602 (Apr. 26, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart IIII). Consequently, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), Defendant is hereby Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23-1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 46 364 CR 19 8 il 09 26 6 4 5 4 ORDERED to perform all acts or duties required by 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and § 7412(f)(2) for the above-listed major source categories of hazardous air pollutants according to the following schedule:  Sign proposed actions for ten (10) of the above-listed major source categories no later than eight (8) months after the date of this Order, and sign final actions fulfilling all relevant statutory requirements to complete those rulemakings no later than one (1) year after the date of this Order; and  Sign proposed actions for the remaining ten (10) above-listed major source categories no later than twenty (20) months after the date of this Order, and sign final actions fulfilling all relevant statutory requirements to complete those rulemakings no later than two (2) years after the date of this Order. Following signature of the above actions, EPA shall transmit the signed actions to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ___________, 2016 _________________________________ HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23-1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 46 364 CR 19 8 il 09 26 6 5 5