Community In-Power And Development Association, Inc. et alCross MOTION for Summary JudgmentD.D.C.June 14, 2017IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMUNITY IN-POWER AND ) DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ ) v. ) ) SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) EPA’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Scott Pruitt, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, hereby cross-moves for summary judgment as to remedy on the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Community In-Power and Development Association Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Sierra Club, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey H. Wood Acting 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-01074-KBJ Document 23 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMUNITY IN-POWER AND ) DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ ) v. ) ) SCOTT PRUITT, 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 Scott Pruitt, in his 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 Community In-Power and Development Association Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Sierra Club, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (jointly referred to as “Plaintiffs”) (ECF 21) 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 nine 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 27 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 nine 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). EPA performs 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). 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 nine categories identified in Table A below. See Answer, ¶¶ 34-42. ECF 15. 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 five source categories in 12 months after the Court enters a final order on the cross-motions for summary judgment and for four additional categories within 24 months of that date. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 28 (“Pltfs. Memo”). ECF 21. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 27 3 More specifically, plaintiffs urge the court to require EPA to sign notices of proposed rulemakings for both technology and residual risk reviews for five categories within eight months after the order, and to sign notices of final rulemakings for those categories four months later. For the remaining four 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 will not result in rules sufficient to serve the purpose intended by Congress because it 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 suggest that the RTR rulemakings at issue are straightforward and fairly simple. Pltfs. Memo at 29-31. They ignore the technical complexity of the needed analyses and the differences between source categories. Moreover, Plaintiffs suggest that, in determining the appropriate deadlines, the Court should simply ignore that this is only one of several cases filed by an overlapping set of environmental plaintiffs that have resulted in consent decrees or judicial decisions ordering EPA to complete the RTR rulemakings for 37 categories.1 In contrast, EPA’s proposed schedule is based on an analysis of the work required 1 These court-ordered schedules are discussed in more detail infra at 9-11. EPA is also working on the RTRs for two other source categories. Id. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 27 4 to complete the RTR review for each source category and takes into consideration the other court-imposed and statutory deadlines that must be met by EPA’s Sector Policies and Programs Division (“SPPD”), which is part of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, and which is the office responsible for all of the RTR reviews. Finally, EPA, unlike Plaintiffs, has considered the Agency’s past experience completing RTR reviews. The Agency’s proposed schedule is based on the actual experience of EPA in finalizing RTR rulemakings for 31 source categories under the schedules 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 v. EPA, Case No. 12-1607 (D.D.C.). Declaration of Panagiotis E. Tsirigotis, Director of the SPPD, ¶ 21 (June 14, 2017) (“Tsirigotis Decl.”). Exhibit A. After evaluating the nine 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. Id. ¶ 11. 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 27 5 Number of Named Categories Signature of proposed rule Signature of final rule 4 Staggered between July 2021 and December 20212 Staggered between July 2022 and December 2022 2 Staggered between February 2022 and April 2022 Staggered between February 2023 and July 2023 3 Staggered between January 2023 and April 2023 Staggered between April 2024 and July 2024 EPA’s proposed schedule requires the Agency to complete, for nine source categories, both the technology and residual risk reviews, including the promulgation of revised standards where appropriate, within approximately seven years from the date of this cross-motion. Importantly, this schedule takes into account the RTR obligations recently imposed by this Court in two other cases,3 which require EPA to complete RTRs for 33 source categories by June 2020. As explained by Mr. Tsirigotis, because of these existing obligations, the Agency will not be able to begin work on the RTRs for the nine source categories at issue in the present case until most of these 33 rulemakings have been completed in March 2020. Tsirigotis Decl. 12. Thus, the last deadline would be approximately four years after EPA is able to begin work on the nine source categories at issue here. As explained below, this amount of time is critical to ensuring that the rulemaking process for each RTR rule can be sufficiently thorough to serve the purpose intended by Congress. The RTR rules must be based on the careful collection of the necessary information 2 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. 3 California Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt, Case No: 1:15-cv-00512, 2017 WL 978,974 (Mar. 13, 2017, D.D.C.) (“California Communities”) and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Pruitt, Case No: 1:16-cv-00364, 2017 WL 1,080,923 (D.D.C.) (“Blue Ridge”) Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 27 6 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 whether additional rulemaking is needed to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 27 7 U.S.C. §§ 7412(d) & (f); see Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 857-58 (D.C. Cir. 2001).4 For the first stage, Congress required EPA to promulgate technology-based emission standards for categories of sources that emit one or more of the HAPs listed in the statute or by EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(1) & (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). 4 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 27 8 ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT HAS EQUITABLE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE A REASONABLE SCHEDULE FOR THE AGENCY TO TAKE ACTION 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 remains only for the Court to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy.”) (citing cases). 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); 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”) (quoting Sierra Club v. Thomas, 658 F. Supp. 165, 175 (N.D. Cal. 1987)). 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 27 9 agency’s capacity or would unduly jeopardize the implementation of other essential programs,” 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. 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 nine residual risk and technology reviews, or RTRs, at issue here.5 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. The schedule also takes into account 39 other RTR rulemakings in which EPA is either currently engaged or will begin shortly -- all of which are subject to the same statutory eight-year deadlines for risk and technology review that apply to the nine source categories at issue here. Specifically: EPA is working on RTR rulemakings for two source categories, Coke Ovens and Large 5 The technology and risk reviews are usually performed at the same time, and this approach has significant efficiencies, but 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 27 10 Municipal Waste Combustors, which are subject to the same statutory deadline as the RTR rulemakings for the nine source categories in the Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 7. EPA is subject to court-ordered schedules to complete RTR rulemakings for an additional 37 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 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 rulemaking for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category. EPA must sign a proposed rule by September 15, 2017, and a final rule by July 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 rulemakings for the Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources source category and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing source category by October 1, 2017. The order issued on March 13, 2017, in California Communities, 2017 WL 978,974, *6, requires EPA to complete RTR rulemakings for 20 source categories within three years (March 13, 2020). The order issued on March 22, 2017, in Blue Ridge, 2017 WL 1080923, *5, requires EPA to complete RTR rulemakings for seven source Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 27 11 categories by December 31, 2018, and to complete six RTR rulemakings by June 30, 2020. Finally, Mr. Tsirigotis gave careful consideration to the resources available to complete this work. In Paragraph 12 of his Declaration, Mr. Tsirigotis incorporated by reference a declaration he submitted in prior litigation (referred to hereinafter as the “Supplemental Declaration”). The Supplemental Declaration is Attachment 1 to the Tsirigotis Declaration. As Mr. Tsirigotis explained, SPPD has a limited number of personnel with the expertise needed to conduct the necessary reviews and develop additional regulations where appropriate. Id.; Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 6-11. Moreover, these same individuals are also necessary to the Agency’s work to meet other mandatory obligations under the CAA. Specifically, SPPD is responsible for mandatory reviews of about 250 regulations (including the RTR rulemakings), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411 and 7429, as well as section 7412. Id. Decl. ¶ 4. In addition, SPPD is required to work on implementation of the standards once promulgated. Id. ¶¶ 6-12. The schedule developed by EPA for the RTR rulemakings for the nine source categories at issue in the present case is set out in the Tsirigotis Declaration and incorporated below. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 27 12 Table A: Proposal and Final Rule Dates for the 9 RTR Source Categories Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants July 23, 2021 July 22, 2022 Semiconductor Manufacturing Nov. 11, 2021 Nov. 10, 2022 Generic MACT II – Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Dec. 9, 2021 Dec. 8, 2022 Generic MACT II – Spandex Production Dec. 9, 2021 Dec. 8, 2022 Generic MACT II – Carbon Black Production Feb. 24, 2022 Feb. 23, 2023 Primary Copper Smelting April 21, 2022 July 13, 2023 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Jan. 19, 2023 April 11, 2024 Refractory Products Manufacturing Feb. 23, 2023 May 16, 2024 Primary Magnesium Refining April 20, 2023 July 18, 2024 Tsirigotis Decl. ¶ 8, Table 1. Under this schedule, EPA’s final action on the first of the nine RTR rulemakings will be signed no later than July 22, 2022, and the last rule will be signed on July 18, 2024. EPA will start work on these rules in March 2020. Decl. Table 2. Thus, the Agency will complete action on the nine RTR rulemakings at issue in this case, as well the 39 RTR rulemakings described above, within approximately seven years from the date this cross- motion for summary judgment is filed. The Declaration provides detailed factual support for this schedule. Furthermore, as Mr. Tsirigotis testifies, Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule, which would require EPA to complete all nine RTR rulemakings within two years after the Court issues a final order on the cross- motions for summary judgment, ignores the already heavy burden of the Agency to issue 37 RTR rulemakings within 3 years and would undermine the soundness of the rules by not allowing enough time for the Agency to gather necessary emissions data or to properly allow for public participation. 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 12 of 27 13 of time necessary for each phase and explains how that timetable was applied for each of the nine 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 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 13 of 27 14 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. This process generally takes approximately 90 days and EPA has assigned 90 days to each category except for Mercury Cell-Chlor Alkali, for which EPA has assigned 45 days. 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”).6 Decl. ¶ 14(a)). 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 nine source categories: 6 If EPA issues such a request to more than nine entities, the Agency must comply with additional procedures under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3)(A)(i) (definition of “collection of information”). Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 14 of 27 15 For five categories, EPA does not expect to seek supplemental information in addition to the information assembled during Phase II. Decl. ¶ 15(b). Therefore, EPA has provided no time for Phase III in the schedule for these five categories. For four categories, in addition to the information assembled in Phase II, EPA expects to require supplemental information from nine or fewer entities. Id. ¶ 15(c). If, as EPA currently expects, EPA does not need to require facilities to perform new emissions testing for one category, but only to provide existing data, this Phase III process – running from preparation of the request to receipt of the responses - can be completed for this category in approximately seven months, as reflected in the schedule. If EPA determines that additional time is needed to collect new emissions testing for this source category, 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, but in order to determine exactly what testing is needed, EPA will first need to evaluate survey responses from each facility. Overall, EPA estimates that surveys will take about 7 months to complete, and that the process of developing test requests and completing any required testing for these categories will take an additional 11 months to complete. Overall, EPA estimates a total of 18 months for the completion of Phase III for these three categories. Id. 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. ¶ 16. In addition to emissions Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 15 of 27 16 information, the modeling file includes other critical information such as the location of each emissions source and information on releases of fugitive emissions.7 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 estimates that this phase generally will take three to four months, depending on the level of complexity for the particular category. For the categories at issue, EPA has included 90 days for all but one of the source categories. Id. For one category, Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants, EPA has determined that only 45 days is necessary for this phase because of the very limited number of facilities, emission points, and pollutants emitted. 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. ¶ 17. 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 assessment), but, as discussed below, there may be up to four components to be prepared. Id. ¶ 7 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 16 of 27 17 17. 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. ¶ 17(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. ¶ 17(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 five source categories for which EPA expects second and/or third tier analysis to be needed. Id. 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 17 of 27 18 demographic assessment. Id. ¶ 17(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.8 A risk-based demographic assessment is an important tool in evaluating environmental justice concerns. Id. ¶ 17(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. ¶ 18. 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 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 8 The Agency may have to seek additional time if its current expectation proves to be mistaken. Id. ¶ 16(c). Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 18 of 27 19 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, ¶ 18(a)-(g), 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 eight of the nine rules as provided in the table. For the category Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, EPA has allowed only nine months because there are only two facilities that have to be addressed (one of which may convert to a non-mercury process and so may no longer have to be addressed as part of this category). Id. ¶ 18(h). PHASE VII: The seventh phase includes publication and an opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule. Id. ¶ 19. 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. ¶ 19. 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 19 of 27 20 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 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. ¶ 20. 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. ¶ 21. Consistent with Executive Order 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. at 51,736, EPA has included three months for OMB review. Concurrent with OMB review, the Agency finalizes the response to comments and Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 20 of 27 21 compiles and indexes the administrative record. Id. After all this has been completed, the 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 nine rulemakings at issue and the amount of time that will be required to complete each stage for each of the nine rules. 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. ¶ 22. In the Sierra Club v. Jackson consent decree, entered in 2011, EPA committed to complete 28 RTR rulemakings (most of which were already underway) by 2013.9 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 B. 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).10 The schedule proposed by EPA will allow for an orderly completion of the Agency’s statutory obligations with respect to the RTR rulemakings at issue here, without necessitating shortcuts 9 For one category, the deadline for final action is not until 2018. Consent Decree, ¶ 28. 10 The Tsirigotis Declaration identifies several instances where an unanticipated development may make additional time necessary. See, e.g., id. ¶ 15(c)-(d). Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 21 of 27 22 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 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 nine 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 rulemakings 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.”). Similarly, in setting a schedule in Blue Ridge, Judge Cooper expressly considered the schedule set in California Toxics for completing 20 RTR rulemakings before determining the deadlines to be set for the 13 RTR rulemakings at issue in Blue Ridge. 2017 WL 1,080,923, at *5. As explained above, EPA must complete 37 RTR rulemakings before June 30, 2020, to meet its court-ordered obligations. This is a reality that cannot be ignored or dismissed by facile statements that EPA should be able to work on dozens of rules at once so that all can be completed within Plaintiffs’ preferred schedule. Plaintiffs’ argument that EPA should be ordered to complete the nine RTR rulemakings in two years primarily relies 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 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 22 of 27 23 Court apply this same time limit to the RTR rulemakings at issue here. Pltfs. Memo at 29-30. First, their request that the Court require EPA to complete five RTR rulemakings in one year, rather than even the two allotted by Congress for the initial NESHAPs, is inconsistent with this very argument. Second, Plaintiffs’ assumption that this two-year statutory time limit is pertinent is misplaced. Congress determined that the RTR rulemakings must be completed eight years after the NESHAP is promulgated and that the technology review portion must be completed every eight years thereafter. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2). The length of the intervals reflects the practical reality that a standard must be in place for some amount of time before a meaningful review can begin. Congress, however, simply did not provide instruction as to how many of the eight years were necessary for the actual RTR rulemaking process. Thus, the statute does not support Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court should assume that Congress intended that the RTR rulemaking process should be completed in two years. Moreover, the argument ignores the fact that 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 rulemaking 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 was not required for those prior NESHAP rulemakings. As recognized in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 857-58, Congress established the two-stage approach--one technology-based and the other risk-based-- regulating HAP emissions under section 7412(d) and (f)(2) because of the difficulties inherent in setting risk-based regulations. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that Congress intended that the risk-based portion of Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 23 of 27 24 the RTR rulemaking process could be completed in the two-year statutory timeframe provided for setting the initial technology-based standards. As Mr. Tsirigotis explained, the schedule proposed by EPA is based on the time required for this risk-based analysis; the technology review is conducted concurrently and so does not require additional time. Decl. ¶ 17. 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.11 This point misses the mark. While EPA may move for an extension of a deadline where appropriate, the Agency will meet deadlines imposed by the federal courts.12 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 complete a rulemaking that is sufficiently thorough to meet the purpose intended by Congress. 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, ¶ 22, in recent years EPA has not been able to complete an RTR rulemaking in less than 2.5 years. In California Communities, at 10, Judge Chutkan described this past experience as a “useful benchmark” in evaluating what 11 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. Pltf. Memo at 27 n.7. 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 C. 12 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 24 of 27 25 deadlines are possible for the Agency to meet. As Judge Chutkan noted, there is no “pragmatic value” in ordering the Agency to meet deadlines that past events showed were not possible. Neither is there any value in setting a schedule which does not allow the Agency sufficient time to conduct a thorough review of the current standards and to develop any new standards as may be appropriate. The Agency recognizes that these rulemakings do not need to be perfect, but there must nonetheless be a balance between expediting completion and maintaining the quality of the Agency’s conclusions so that the rulemakings will accomplish their statutory purpose. Mr. Tsirigotis has explained how an unduly compressed schedule would impair the quality of the RTR rulemakings. In response to concerns raised during development of earlier RTR rules, the Agency added new levels to its analyses, and, as a result, the rulemaking actions are now more complicated. Decl. ¶ 23. 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, to fill in data gaps by requiring additional testing at one or more facilities. 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 the proposed rule and signature on a final rule would significantly undermine the Agency’s Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 25 of 27 26 ability to perform updated analyses with any new data received during the comment period and to consider and adjust the rule, if needed, in response to public comment. Plaintiffs also suggest that EPA could speed up these rulemakings by reallocating resources. As Mr. Tsirigotis explained in the Supplemental Declaration, there are a finite number of individuals within the Agency who have the expertise to lead an RTR rulemaking; it is not simply a matter of assigning more employees to these projects. Moreover, while EPA does utilize contractors for certain tasks, many of the necessary actions cannot be delegated outside the Agency. Finally, EPA does use personnel from areas of EPA other than SPPD to work on the RTR rulemakings; such coordination is necessary to bring to bear the different areas of expertise required to complete the process. In making these arguments, Plaintiffs simply ignore the fundamental fact, emphasized by Judge Chutkan, that the Agency has not been able to complete RTR rulemakings on the truncated schedule they propose. None have been completed in less than 2.5 years and most have taken much longer. Moreover, Plaintiffs recognize that the nine source categories at issue in the instant case include different types of “major industrial facilities.” Pltf. Memo at 10. The examples Plaintiffs choose to refer to – chemical and foam manufacturers” and “metal smelting and refining operations” – illustrate that the categories are not functionally related, but will present distinct and different issues. Id. This recognition is inconsistent with their position that the RTR rules for the nine source categories are straight-forward proceedings that can be completed on a rushed schedule. In sum, while Plaintiffs suggest that some of the RTR rulemakings at issue can be completed in one year and the remaining rulemakings within two years (even though the Agency is under court order to complete 37 RTR rulemakings in the next three years), their Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 26 of 27 27 contention is not tenable, at least not if the RTR rules are to be carried out with a thoroughness sufficient to ensure that the results will meet the purpose intended by Congress. The Court should give careful consideration to these negative effects of a truncated process in evaluating Plaintiffs’ arguments. In contrast, the schedule presented by EPA will ensure that the need for expeditious action does not impair the effectiveness of the rulemaking process. 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, Jeffrey H. Wood Acting 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 27 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ., DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION { INC., et al., ) ) Ptaintffi ) v. ì Ciuit Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ ) SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, ì United States Environmental / Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) DECLARATION OF PANAGIOTIS E. TSIRIGOTIS L 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 infonnation contained in the records of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or supplied to me by EPA ernployees under my supervision. 2. I am the Director of the Sector Policies and Prograrns Division (SPPD) within the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) at EPA, a position 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 50 the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42U.5.C.ç 7412, which is the national emission stanclards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) prograrn. 3. In rny current capacity as Director of SPPD, I arn responsible for overseeing EPA's prornulgation of significant regulations related to the NESHAP and solid waste combustion programs. In this capacity,I arn familiar with the process required for developing and promulgating rnajor EPA regulations under the CAA. 4. Section I l2 addresses the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Section l|2(d)(2) requires EPA to establish ernission 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 ll2(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 prornulgation of such standards is required in order to provide an ample rnargin 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 I l2(dX6) provides: The Adrninistrator 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-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 50 The review conducted pursuant to section lI2(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 perforrns the residual risk review at the same time as the frrst 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 rnultiple parties. For industry, this joint approach reduces the potential for unnecessary costs from imposing marginally more effective, yet potentially significantly rnore costly, controls in a second rulernaking; for public interest groups, this joint approach avoids the potential that EPA rnight 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 rulemaking reviews for each of the source categories at issue in this litigation. 5. As part of rny duties as the Director of SPPD, I am involved in the prioritization and allocation of EPA's resources in order to meet the legal requ_i_r'ements of the CAA as well as the air quality needs of the nation. Due to funding and other resource constraints facing the agency, EPA is not able to Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 50 perform all activities that it may want to perform, and that it is authorized to perform, af any given tirne. 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 infonnational bases that underlie them. Meeting all mandatory duties irnposed by the CAA with lirnited 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) wherher the CAA requires a project to be completed by a certain tirne; (2) the potential for environmental and public health impacts associated with a particular project compared to other projects; (3) the amount of resources that would be needed to complete a particular project; (4) 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 cornpleting rules pursuant to CAA sections tI2(Ð(2)(A) and 112(dX6),42U.5.C.$$ 74r2(Ð(2)(A) and 7412(d)(6), respectively, often collectively referred to as "RTR rules." I have relied upon my staff to provlde the factual inforryration concerning the regulatory Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 50 steps and schedule needed for the particular CAA section l12 acfions at issue in the case for which I make this declaration. 7. 'fhe purpose of this declaration is to explain EPA's proposed schedule for completing the RTR rulemakings for the 9 source categories listed in Table 1. The schedules set forth in Table 1 take into consideration other obligations that OAR, and specifically the sarne division, SPPD, must meet within the same tirnefiarne. These obligations include conducting RTR rulemakings for 37 other source categories as a result of separate lawsuitsl and cornpleting RTR rr"rlernakings for 2 other categories,Large Municipal Waste Combustors and Coke Ovens, subject to the deadline in section 112(Ð(2). Based on rry experience, I The consent decree entered on October 8,2015, in Sierua Club v. McCarthy, Civ. Act. No. 13-1369 (RDM) (D.D.C.) established deadlines for an RTR for the Publicly Owned Treatrnent Works category: EPA must sign a final rule by October 16,2017. Id. T 28. The consent decree entered on Septernber 26,2011, in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv-00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.) requires EPA to cornplete an RTR action for the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category: EPA must sign a proposed rule by Septernber 15,2017, and a final rule by July I 5,2018. Id. f 28. In Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No: 3:15-cv-01165-HSG (N.D.Cal.), by court order clated March 15,2016, the clistrict court ordered that EPA complete an RTR action f-or the Pr"rlp and Papel Combustion Sources source category ancl the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing source category by October 1,2017. In California Commur-rities Against Toxics v. Pruitt, Case No: I :15-cv-00512 (D.D.C.), by court order dated March 13,2017 , the district court ordered that EPA cornplete RTR actions for 20 source categories by March 13, 2020. Finally, in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Pruitt, Case No: 1 :16-cv-00364 (D.D.C.), the district courl ordered that EPA cornplete RTR actions for 7 source categories by Decenrber 31,2018, and 6 additional source categories by Jr"rne 30,2020. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 50 extensive consultation with OAQPS staff, and consideration of these other pending RTR actions, the following schedule represents my best estirnates of the minimum times needed for cornpletion of the risk and technology reviews and promulgation of workable amendments to the standards, if needed, for these 9 source categories. These estirnates include only the amount of time needed to cornplete the projects in a manner that allows EPA to gather data when appropriate and to identify and reasonably consider signifrcant issues that may irnpact public health, the environment or the econorny. The estimates do not provide time to perform all of the activities that the Agency would ideally choose to perform. 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 the soundness of the regulatory actions, their legal defensibility and, most importantly, protection of public health. 8. The proposed schedules for the 9 source categories are shown in Table l. Section A of this declaration discusses the rulemaking phases and provides details on the amount of tirne needed to complete each phase. Table l. P I and Final Rule Dates for the 9 RTR Source Categorio rr(Jt)osal ll(¡ rt l ñ Lr u r s nes Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants July 23, 2021 Julv 22,2022 Sern iconductor Manufacturing Nov. 11.2021 Nov. 10.2022 Generic MACT II - Cyanide Chemicals lvlanufacturins- -Dec-9JALI Dec. 8, 2022- Gener c MACT II - Spandex Production Dec. 9, 2021 Dec. 8, 2022 Generic MACT II - Carbon Black Production Feb. 24,2022 Feb. 23. 2023 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 50 Primarry Copper Smelting April 21,2022 July 1 3,2023 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Jan. 19,2023 April 11,2024 Refractory Products Manufacturins Feb. 23. 2023 May I 6.2024 Primary Magnesium Refining April 20,2023 Julv 18,2024 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 minimurn time necessary to adequately complete those tasks. This template and the resulting schedule are based on SPPD's actual experience finalizing RTR projects covering 3l source categories since 2012. 10. The RTR rulemaking process can be divided into 9 phases: Phase I. Project I(ckoff PhaselI. PrelirninarylnfonnationCollection PhaselII. Supplernental InformationCollection Phase IV. Data Analyses and Modeling File Development Phase V. Residual Risk Analyses and Technology Review Phase VI. Developrnent of Rule Proposal Package Phase VII. Proposed Rule Publication and Public Comment Period Phase VIII. Summarization of Comments, Development of Comment Responses and A.nalysis of Data Phase IX. Developrnent of Final Rule Package Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 50 A. General Schedule Requirements for Risk and Technology Review Projects. I l. 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 tirne needed to complete these rulernakings, we evaluated the current workload in SPPD, which is largely driven by court orders for 35 RTR source categories, but also includes consent decrees for cornpletion of 2 other RTRs and other work required by the CAA as discussed in Attachment 1, which is rny recent response to questions from the court in Blue Ridge Environrnental Defense League v. Pruitt, and which provides details related to the resources and responsibilities of SPPD. Table 2 below shows the start state and the nurnber of days estirnated for each proposal phase (Phases I - VI) for each source category, and Table 3 shows the nurnber of days estimated for each final rule phase (Phases VII - IX) for each category. Most of the columns in the tables are selÊexplanatory, but two require some explanation. First, the "Complexity (1-3)" column refers to the expected relative cornplexity 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 rnodeling activities that are both time and resource intensive. In determining the relative cornplexity, we considered factors such as the nurnber of facilities in a source category, the number and types of pollutants emitted, the Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 50 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 irnpacts the tirne 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 tirne it will take to complete the 9 rulernakings at issue because of the workload capacity of the staff. 12. Critical to the schedules set forth here, the recent decisions issued in California Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt (Case No: I : I 5-cv-005 l2 (D.D.C.)) and Blue Ridge Environrnental Defense League v. Pruitt (Case No: 1:16- cv-00364 (D.D.C.)) require EPA to cornplete 7 RTRs by Decernber 3 1,2018,20 additional RTRs by March 13,2020, and 6 additional RTRs by June 30,2020. All availatrle SPPD staff are now assigned to RTR projects subject to court-ordered deadlines established in these other cases, and the workload for these 33 other RTRs does not allow us to begin work on the 9 RTRs at issue here until rnost of the work is cornplete on the 33 RTRs already subject to a coufl-ordered deadline. Attachment I provides details regarding the number of available staff and resources for conducting RTRs. I note that two SPPD staff included in the discussion in Attachment I are no longer with the Agency. One of those staff was Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 50 not experienced in or assigned to RTRs and one was considered as available full- time fbr the RTR program. We evaluated our available staff and resources for the program in light of the court orders for the 33 RTR deadlines and deterrnined that we do not have the staff and resource available to begin work on the 9 categories at issue until March 16, 2020.2 We applied our schedule template to calculate the earliest date for completion of each project. We also note that in order to meet the court-ordered timeline for the first 7 RTR projects as required by the court in Blue Ridge, we have re-programmed resources in order to accelerate those projects, and progress on some other projects that have later deadlines has been delayed. (remainder of page intentionally left blank) 2 This date immediately follows the date by which EPA is required to take final action for 20 RTRs. At that time, EPA also will have completed seven other RTRs subject to court-ordered deadlines and will still be working on six additional RTRS that must be completed by June 30,2020. L0 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 50 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS FOR EACH RTR PROPOSAL PHASE BY SOURCE CATEGORY Source Categorv Complexity fl-3) SPPD Crouo No. of Facilities Start Date Phase I Davs Phase ll Davs Phase III Davs Phase IV DaYs Phase v(a) Darrs Phase v(b) Davs Phase v(d) Davs Phase VI Davs Proposal Date Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants 1 MIG 2 3/16/20 30 45 0 45 30 60 1.4 270 07/23/21 Semiconductor Manufacturing L MMG 9 3/1.6/20 60 90 0 90 30 0 L4 321 t1./tr/21 GMACT ll- Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 1 RCG 5 3/1.6/20 60 90 0 90 30 0 I4 349 L2/Oe/21 GMACT ll - Spandex Production \ RCG L 3/L6/20 60 90 0 90 30 0 1.4 349 t2/oel21 GMACT ll- Carbon Black Production 1 MMG 1.1 3/16/20 60 90 0 90 30 60 T4 366 02/24/22 Primary Copper Smelting 2 MIG 6 3/16/20 60 90 210 90 30 60 1.4 422 1.1./r7 /22 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 2 MMG 6 3/1.6/20 60 90 547 90 30 0 1.4 390 7/20/23 Refractory Products Manufacturing 2 MMG 4 3/1,6/20 60 90 547 90 30 60 t4 365 8/24/23 Primary Magnesium Refining 2 MIG L 3/1.6/20 60 90 547 90 30 60 L4 42t 1.0/Ls/23 11. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 50 TABLE 3. ESTIMATED MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS FOR EACH RTR FINAL RULE PHASE BY SOURCE CATEGORY Source Cates.orv Cornplexity ( r-3) SPPD Grouo Proposal Date Plrase VII Days Phase VIII Days Phase IX Davs Final Rule Date Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants 1 MIG 07123/21 90 90 t84 07/22/22 Semiconductor Manufacturing L MMG 1-Lllrl2t 90 90 184 ttlr0122 GMACT II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 1, RCG 12/09/2r 90 90 t84 12l08/22 GMACT II- Spandex Production 1 RCG 12/Oe/2r 90 90 184 t2/oB/22 GMACT ll- Carbon Black Production t MMG 02/24/22 90 90 TB4 02/23/23 Primary Copper Smelting 2 MIG r1./t7 /22 90 I20 238 02/oB/24 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 2 MMG 7 /20/23 90 t20 238 ro/t0/24 Refractory Products Manufacturing 2 MMG 8/24/23 90 r20 238 ttlt4/24 Primary Magnesium Refining 2 MIG t0/te/23 90 r20 245 0t/t6/2s Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 12 of 50 13. Phase I. Project Kickoff (l to 2 months) The rnajor tasks to be accornplished in this phase include: (a) Establish a project team and an intra-agency workgroup, 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) Identify potential stakeholders, such as regulated entities and public interest groups, interested in the rule development. Prepare written rnaterials and brief stakeholders on the general plans for the project. Conduct rnultiple meetings with the various stakeholder groups. (c) We expect that a contractor will perform some of the work for 8 of the 9 projects. Therefore, the schedule for 8 of the 9 projects includes tirne for activities related to establishing work assignments, including: preparing a work assignment that establishes the specific tasks and schedule for each project; contractors developing a workplan based on the work assignment; EPA reviewing and commenting on the workplan; contractor revising the workplan in response to EPA comments and submitting the final workplan for EPA approval; and EPA completing the administrative tasks to fund the work assignment. The schedule for the Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants RTR does not include the time (30 days) neecled for this task. L3 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 13 of 50 14. Phase II. Preliminary Informatíon Collection (3 months) The major tasks to be accornplished in this phase include: (a) Collect available background literature concerning the source category and technologies relevant to the source category from various sources such as project files, EPA's library, major university libraries, public libraries, and the Internet. (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 frorn facilities in the source category, in order to determine whether additional information collection is needed to sufficiently characterize emissions from the source category. (e) One of the categories, Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants, requires only 45 days for this phase because of the level of information already available for the category and because the size of the category 14 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 14 of 50 is decreasing and new sources are prohibited (thus, there is no need to search for new sources, which often is a signifrcant task). 15. Phase IlL Supplemental Information Collectíon (0 to 28 months) (a) While we currently believe that supplemental information collection will be necessary for several of the source categories in order for EPA to cornplete a sound and defensible rulemaking, we will rnake a final determination following the prelirninary information collection phase for each project. The EPA can select from 3 options for supplernental information collection. The first option, for categories where we already have sufficient inforrnation, 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, author\zed under section I l4 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 7414, does not require approval by the Office of Management and Br"rdget (OMB). The third option, which we refer to as an "information collection request (lCR)" in this declaration, is to send a request for information to 10 or more entities in a source category. This type of inforrnation collection, also authorized under section I l4 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 tirne and resources. Regardless of the number of entities, developrnent of either a survey or an ICR involves identifying information 15 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 15 of 50 needs, developing questions and instructions, and preparing an electronic systern (i.e., spreadsheets or a database) for infonnation submittal. While some questions are generic in nature, tnuch of the survey or ICR is tailored to the specific industry, so a survey or ICR is uniqr-re for each source category and requires time and resources to develop. However, for the categories at issue, we do not anticipate the need for any OMB-approved ICRs. (b) Our current inforrnation suggests that we do not need to collect supplemental information to complete the RTRs for the following 5 source categories: Semiconcluctor Manufacturing, Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Spandex Production, Carbon Black Production and Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants. Therefore, our proposed schedule does not include time for supplemental information collection for these categories. We estimate that for the other 4 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 inforrnation regarding the number of facilities in each category and anticipated infonnation needs, we project that a survey would be necessary in order to fill data gaps for 4 source categories: Prirnary Copper S melting, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication, Refractory Products Manufacturing and Prirnary Magnesium Refining. This supplernental information 1,6 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 16 of 50 collection would not require approval by OMB. We expect the preparation process for the surveys to take a minirnum of 45 days, followed by a21-day internal review, 7 days for revisions, a 30-day stakeholder review, and t4 days for final revisions and distribution to industry. An adequate response period for subject entities is a rninimum of 3 rronths, which allows tirne for review of the questions, gathering of inforrnation regarding processes, emission controls, raw materials, pollution prevention measures and other requested information, colrìpilation of existing testing and monitoring data, development of emission estimates, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), review and approval by facility managernent, and formal submittal of inforrnation, with certifrcation stating that the inforrnation subrnitted is an accurate representation of facility operations and emissions. In total, this process takes a minirnum of 7 rnonths and for Primary Copper Smelting, we included 7 months for supplemental information collection. For the rernaining three categories, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication, Refractory Products Manr-rfacturing and Primary Magnesium Reflrning, we anticipate that after receipt of the information from the initial phase of the surveys, we will also need to require new emission (or raw materials) testing. Accordingly, we are including the amount of time necessary for performing new tests in our proposed schedules. The new emission testing process takes a minirnum of 6 additional months and can take up to l8 months depending on rnultiple factors, including the extent of the testing, T7 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 17 of 50 the specific pollutants tested (sorne laboratory analyses take up to I rnonth to cornplete), the tirne 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 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 subrnittal of data through EPA's electronic reporting tool. For the 3 source categories, we expect fairly involved testing and included 1l rnonths in the schedule to complete this new emissions testing. Thus, for these three categories, we include a total of 18 months to complete the supplernental infonnation collection process. 16. Phase IV. Data Analyses and Modeling File Development (3 to 4 Months) Based on the inforrnation and data gathered for each source category, EPA develops a detailed modeling file that provides required inputs to the risk rnodels. The modeling file includes the following inforrnation for every emission point in the source category at each facility: precise stack location; stack parameters including height, diameter, stack gas velocity and temperature; ernissions values for each põllutant; and other site specific informãtion. The modeling fìle also includes inforrnation for fugitive releases (i.e., ernissions from a stationary source L8 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 18 of 50 other than those that are captured and pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other such opening): precise location, release parameters including fugitive lengths and widths, gas velocity, and temperature. The file undergoes extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities to minirnize errors. Example QA/QC activities include plotting of source locations on maps to ensure that the locations are correct and identification of incorrect ernission values through outlier analyses. The amount of time required for rnodeling file preparation is dependent on multiple factors, including the number of facilities and the cornplexity of the source category. Specifically, the file for a category with only a few 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 errors in the modeling file irnpact all future project activities. We typically estimate a minimum of between 3 and 4 rnonths for completion of this phase depending on the cornplexity of the project. However, for Mercury Ernissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, we require only 45 days for this phase because of the level of data already available for the category, certainty regarding the inventory of facilities and pollutants ernitted, and available emissions data. 17. Phqse V. Residual Rísk Analysis and Technologt Revíew (2 to 6 months) There are rnultiple components to residual risk assessments: (a) inhalation assessment, (b) rnultipathway screening assessrnents, (c) multipathway refined 19 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 19 of 50 assessment, and (d) risk-based demographic assessment. Cornponents are conclucted for a source category as needed. All risk estimates derived in this phase assume that the ernission inventory has undergone QA/QC, as discussed above, before receipt by the risk assessors, and that modeling will be conducted one time, not rnultiple times. If sufficient QA/QC is not conducted, the tirne required for rnodeling can increase several fold. We estirnate the time for each category considering our preliminary evaluations of the cornplexity 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, fftore 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 important to note that after the time- consuming process of developing a modeling file is complete, a single run of the computer rnodel can take up to 2 weeks for larger, complex source categories. (a) An inhalation assessrnent, which estirnates the risk from chronic inhalation of each pollutant, is always conducted, and the minirnum amount of tirne required for this step is between I and 3 months. For a specific source category, the amount of tirne required for the inhalation assessment depends on the nqqþqr of facilities in the category, the number of sources at the facilities, the number of pollutants ernitted from the sources, and the locations of the facilities. 20 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 20 of 50 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 rnodel) to ensure that they are not located on facility properly and that they accurately represent the location of the population in each census block. The location where 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 lnore time is needed to conduct these checks. Next, because the model estimates ambient air concentrations at every census block centroid within 50 kilorneters of a facility and for every pollutant from every source fì"orn every facility in the source category, modeling for categories with more pollutants, rtore 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 rnodeling scenarios are required (e.9., to estimate risks from post-control ernissions), additional tirne is needed. Concurrently, we also assess the potential for acute non-cancer inhalation risk for each source category. We estimate between I and 3 months for the inhalation assessment and our concurrent assessment of non-cancer acute risk for each of the source categories. (b) th. 3-tiered rnultipathway screening assessments, which are usqd tL provide upper-bound estirnates of risk from ingestion of food contaminated with 21 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 21 of 50 pollutants emitted from the source category (e.g., metals that bioaccumulate in fish), are only conducted on persistent and bioaccurnulative HAp (pB-HAp). These include cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, arsenic compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and polycyclic organic matter. Categories not emitting these pollutants do not require multipathway assessments. Only if a facility "fails" the screen at one tier (i.e., upper-bound estimated risks are higher than levels that might be of concern) 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 rnultipathway screen, and additional tirne beyond that needed for the rnultipathway screen is not required. If a category has facilities that ernit high levels of PB-HAP, 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 nurnber of facilities and pollutants that "fail" the first 2 screens. For the following 4 source categories, available inforrnation indicates that pB HAp are not _ _ emittecl b:r ry9st or all facilities: Semiconductor Manufacturing, Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Spandex Production, and Flexible Polyurethane Foam 22 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 22 of 50 Fabrication. Therefore, we project that for those 4 categories, the assessment will either not need a tier I screen, or will "pass" the tier 1 screen if PB-HAP are ernitted, For those 4 categories, the time estimated for performing the inhalation assessment should also be suffìcient for performing the multi-pathway screening assessment. If we determine that PB-HAP are ernitted frorn the source category in quantities that would cause facilities to fail one or more tiers of the screen, we may seek adclitional time to conduct the additional screens. For the other 5 source categories (Mercury Ernissions frorn Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, Carbon Black Production, Primary Copper Srnelting, Refractory Products Manufacturing, and Primary Magnesium Refining), prelirninary information suggests that PB-HAP are likely ernitted, and we project that all three tiers of the screening assessments will need to be run. For each of these 5 categories, the schedule includes 2 months for conducting the rnultipathway screen. (c) If a source category has facilities that "fail" the tier 3 rnultipathway screen, the risk assessment team may deterrnine that a refined rnultipathway 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 rnultipathway screen includes some site-specific pararneters, there are many parameters that are still based on nationwide default values. A refîned multipathway assessment attempts to replace as many of these parameter default 23 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 23 of 50 values as possible with site-specific values. The gathering of this site-specific data and the design of the rnodel parcels (that is, the topography and location of lakes and land that greatly influence the rnultipathway assessrnent) around the facility take the bulk of the tirne in a refined multipathway assessment. Once the inputs are prepared, the rnultipathway model is run, and results undergo eA/eC and are summarized for the risk assessment team. An additional three to four months would be needed to conduct a refined multipathway assessment for one facility. If such an analysis is needed for more than one facility, additional tirne would be needed. It is not anticipated that a refined rnultipathway assessment will be necessary for one or more facilities in any of the source categories, so no additional tirne beyond that for an inhalation assessment is included in the schedule. If we determine that a refined multipathway assessment is necessary for one or nìore polh-rtants emitted frorn one or more facilities in any source category, we would seek aclclitional time to conduct the analysis. (d) Finally, if EPA detennines that a risk-based dernographic assessment is necessary, which is typically the case unless risks are well below a level of concern, I to 2 additional weeks will be required. This type of analysis is used to determine if ernissions 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 24 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 24 of 50 jr,rstice issues as required under Executive Order 12898. A risk-based dernographic assesslnent cannot be conducted until the inhalation rnodeling is complete. For all 9 source categories, we plan to conduct risk-based dernographics assessfitent, and we 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 perforrn the technology review, which involves evaluation of developrnents in practices, processes and controls to deterrnine whether or not standards should be updated to reflect those developments. As part of the technology review, EPA evaluates the perfonnance of control technologies and other emission reduction measures that have been irnplernented or irnproved since the original standards were finalized. In conjunction with the ernission 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. 25 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 25 of 50 18. Phase VI. Development of Rule Proposal Package (12 to I5 Months, concurrent with last I month of Residual Rísk Analyses) The amount of tirne for individual tasks in this phase is difficult to separate because rnultiple tasks have considerable overlap. In general, these tasks require technical analyses, rnultiple 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 rnost instances, oMB. overall, we estimate this phase to take 12 to 15 rnonths, with work on the phase beginning during the last month of the residual risk analyses discussed under Phase V. We note that the tirne 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 or signature dates. The rnajor tasks to be cornpleted in this phase include: (a) Drafting workgroup briefing materials, including development of regulatory options for possible inclusion in the proposed rule and the irnpacts 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 legally and technically sufficient rules. The workgroup provides input on health benchmarks, various technical analyses and aspects of the risk assessment, ease of 26 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 26 of 50 enforcement, monitoring and testing technology, policy, and other aspects of the rulernaking; (b) Preparing briefTng materials and briefìng EPA management for selection of the regulatory option(s) for inclusion in the proposed rule; (c) Drafting proposed prearnble and regulatory text, including prelirninary review by OAR management. (d) Drafting supporting docurnentation for the proposed rulernaking 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 things, legal sufficiency, sound scientific supporl, and consistency with other programs. lnternal EPA procedures mandate that workgroup review is a rninimurn of l5 working days (approximately three weeks), and we therefore include 2l 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 managenìent and, for projects that are considered significant regulatory actions, by OMB. We have includecl 3 months for OMB review for each of the source categories. See 27 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 27 of 50 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 frorn EPA management, the EpA Adrninistrator signs the proposed rule, which is then sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. (h) One of the categories, Mercury Ernissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants, requires somewhat less tirne because the category includes ernissions of only one pollutant and there are only 2 facilities, one of which has announced plans to conveft to a non-mercury process (and would no longer be part of the category once it converts). For this category, we estirnate that this phase can be completed in 9 months. 19. Phase VII. Proposed Rule Publication and Public Comment Period (3 nonths) The public colrlnent period begins on the date that the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, 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 assulning 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 hearing cannot be held until about 2 weeks after publication of the proposal lto allow for interested parties to make plans whether to attend the hearing and to Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 28 of 50 review the proposed rule and prepare oral comments), the default "rninirnurn" amount of tirne for the cotnrrent 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 rnonths. 20. Phase VllL Summarization 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 sulrlnary of the comments. The number and cornplexity of the comments greatly varies from rule to rule. We typically receive between 10 and 50 unique, substantive comment letters, solne including detailed technical data and information, on RTR proposals, although this number has been as high as about 200 for some of the larger, nore complex source categories. \ffe estirnate that drafting a written summary of comments for source categories where lirnited 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, solre require briefing EPA management, and some require re-analysis of data or analysis of new data supplied during the cornlnent period. For each source category, we estirnate between 2 and 3 months for developing and drafting initial comment responses and conducting 29 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 29 of 50 additional data analyses, if needed. In cases where we get an unusually large nutnber of comments, the comment response task could take longer than our estirnated time, and we would likely seek additional time to complete the final rule. 21. Phase IX. Development of Final Rule Package (6 to B 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 tirne 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 rnajor 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 cornplete this task. (b) Preparing recommendations and briefing EPA management on cornments received and changes recommended as a result of those comments. This task involves briefings for SPPD management, OAQPS management, and OAR management. This briefing process takes a minimum of 1 month. 30 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 30 of 50 (c) Completing all needed technical analyses (which rnay 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 docurnentation and drafting new supporting documentation as needed; and cornpiling the comment summary and response document. We estimate a minirnum of I to 2 rnonths for these activities, depending on the cornplexity of the rule. (d) Submitting draft materials to the workgroup for review, which helps to ensure, among other things, legal sufficiency, 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 rninimum of 15 working days (approxirnately 3 weeks), and we therefore include 2l 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, OMB. We include 3 rnonths for OMB review for each of the source categories, as specified in Executive Order 12866. While OMB reviews the rule, we compile and 3L Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 31 of 50 index the adrninistrative record, finalize the response to comments document, and finalize 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 rnonths. B. Time for Completion of Prior RTR Actions Supports the Schedules for the 9 RTRs. 22. 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 cornpleted since 2012). See Attachment 2. The schedules set forth for the 9 RTR rulernakings at issue in this declaration are consistent with the shortest time periods it took EPA to complete these prior RTR rulemakings. Based on our recent experience, the minimum tirneframe needed for cornpleting an RTR project is fairly well established. No recent RTR project has been completed in less than 2.5 years from project start date, and any suggestion that it is possible to satisfactorily complete such an effort in a tirneframe shorter than 2.5 years is without rnerit. Since 2012, EPA finalized RTR rulemakings for 31 source categories. The initial schedules for these 3l categories were established under 32 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 32 of 50 earlier consent decrees,3 which provided a maximum of about 3.5 years for completion, with shorter tirneframes provided for most of the source categories. Notably, however, even with this tirneframe we had to renegotiate deadlines multiple times because the original schedule was not suffrcient to cornplete 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 rulernakings, since 2012, only 2 of the 3 1 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 sirnple 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' cornpletion times ranged from 4.5 years to more than 8 years. While many of the projects included multiple proposals and renegotiations of schedules, 3 The consent decrees were entered in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv- 00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.); Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson (D.D.C. No. l:09-cv- 00089-CKK); Air Alliance Houston et al v. EPA, Case No. 12-1607 (D. D.C.). 33 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 33 of 50 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 rninimum amount of time needed to complete the RTR reviews and the prornulgation of workable standards. 23. 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 KfR rules, EPA has irnproved or added new approaches for evaluating risk. For example, EPA has irnproved or added processes for assessing acute, facility- wicle, and environmental risks and for identifying potential environmental justice concerns (through the use of demographics analyses). In addition, the Agency now has developed more refined screening levels for multipathway pollutants that allow a better assessment of risk that the Agency was able to do with the single screening analysis used in the early risk review actions. EPA now requires more time to cornplete RTR projects than it did for older actions in large part due to the more cornplex technical analyses now performed in order to increase assurance that the promulgated rules are technically sound and legally defensible. 24. In accordance with a2006 order of a Federal district court, EPA was required to establish standards for area sources, which are smaller sources of HAPs, under section I l2(d) in approximately 8 months. For these sources, EPA established generally available control technology ("GACT") standards pursuant to Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 34 of 50 section I l2(dX5), in lieu of maxirnum achievable control technology ("MACT") standards pursuant to section ll2(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 1 12(dX6) and I I2(Ð(2). See e.g. proposed National Ernission Stanclards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Cornpounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preservin g,72 Fed. Reg. 16636, 1663 8 (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 ancl the amount of inforrnation needed to complete area source GACT standards, the amount of tirne needed to complete an area source rulemaking in no way reflects the amount of tirne needed to cornplete an RTR rulernaking. SO DECLARED: Dared: 6l 'q I ,+T 35 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 35 of 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL ì DEFENSE LEAGUE, et al., j Plaintffi, ì v. ì Ciuit Action I :16-CV-00364-CRC ) SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, ) United States Environmental ) Èrotection Ág.n.y, ì Defendant. ) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES ì AGAINST TOXICS, et al., j Plaíntífs, ì v. ì Ciuil Action l :1 5-CV-005 1 2-TSC ) SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, ) United States Environmental ) Èiot..tion Àg.n.y, ì )Defendant. CORRECTED 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 Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 36 of 50 information contained in the records of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or supplied to me by EPA employees under my supervision. Z. 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) at EPA, a position I have held since February 6,2006. SppD is rhe division within OAQPS that has responsibility for, among other things, developing regulations, policy, and guidance associated with section I 12 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),42 U.S.C. $ 7412, which is the national emission standards forhazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) program. A. Responses to Questions Raised by the Court 3. At the hearing held on February 2,2017, Judge Cooper requested a declaration from EpA providing additional information concerning the resources available to SPPD, including: (1) How many ernployees are paft of SPPD; (2) How many employees in SPPD work on the risk and technology reviews (RTRs); (3) What are the other responsibilities of SPPD; (a) On what discretionary projects does SppD work; and (5) To what extent can SPPD call on other Agency resources to complete RTR actions? Judge Cooper subsequently issued an order requiring EpA to submit such a declaration and giving Plaintifß an opportunity to respond. This declaration is EPA's response to that order' Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 37 of 50 4. SPPD is the division of EPA responsible for coordinating efforts of the multiple divisions and offices within EPA that support the RTR program, and SPPD also is responsible for conducting information collection, performing many of the required technical analyses, and drafting the regulatory package and much of the supporting documentation for RTRs. An SPPD staff member serves as the project lead for all RTRs. As discussed in my earlier declaration, the project lead relies on the technical expertise of other SPPD staff as well as staff from other EPA divisions and offices, as well as contractors, to complete the technical analyses and prepare the regulatory package. Other EPA offlrces, such as the Office of Research and Development, Office of Policy, and the Offïce of General Counsel, participate in workgroups for each RTR project. \ilorkgroup members provide expertise including technical (such as risk assessment and monitoring), legal (both defensibility and enforceability), and economics. Overall, the projects require considerable coordination, communication, and technical experlise. SPPD currently has 87 employees, 79 of whom work on RTRs (which are described in detail in rny previous declaration) in solne capacity. Forty-two of the 79 employees are either project leads or project assistants who conduct the day-to-day project activities involved with conducting the required reviews and developing regulations, as necessary. These same staff also serve as the project leads and assistants for SPPD's other CAA-mandated regulatory work, which altogether Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 38 of 50 (including the RTRs) results in a total of about 250 regulations subject to periodic review requirements. In addition to the project leads and assistants, there are 6 managers who report directly to me and manage staff, including the project leads and assistants, on rnultiple projects required under the CAA, including RTRs, as described in paragraphs 5 through I I below. There also is a group of 6 policy/program development specialists including a manager who have multiple responsibilities related to RTRs and other regulatory projects, including: reviewing all regulatory packages; providing up-to-date guidance materials to staff; supporling litigation activities including the development of legal briefs; developing schedules and tracking progress; coordinating with other EPA offices; identifying regulatory priorities; and developing and implementing policies regarding technical issues in order to ensure that SPPD's rules are consistent with statutory requirements and internally consistent. SPPD also includes a group of l0 staff, including a manager, responsible for monitoring/recordkeeping and reporting. This group develops monitoring requirements for RTRs and other rules, reviews emissions test reports that are used in RTRs and other rules, and develops electronic systems for submittal of emissions data and other information by entities subject to RTRs and other rules. I also manage 7 additional staff, in my division front office, who provide support with budgeting, planning, training, and oversight of SppD's regulatory prograrns. Three staff are colnmunication specialists who are Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 39 of 50 responsible for preparing briefings and providing technical editing support for RTRs and other work products produced by SPPD. Four staff are administrative support, who provide administrative support for all of the work in SPPD, including editing of regulatory packages, setting up rneetings, setting up travel, timekeeping, and word processing. Overall, I estirnate that the equivalent of 38 full-time staff work on RTRs. For the remainder of this declaration, I use the term full-tirne equivalents or FTEs to indicate the estimates of how many staff are dedicated to particular responsibilities. As described in paragraphs 6 through I l, SPPD's responsibilities include many other types of regulations and reviews, and the statutory requirements sirnply cannot be met given the size of the organization. I note that a typical regulatory project requires up to 3 FTEs within SPPD, along with contractor support, and each of the project leads and assistants typically are assigned to rnultiple projects. 5. RTRs are a significant part of our current work. These reviews must be conducted for all source categories that are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and all section 129 solid waste incinerator rules. There are approxirnately 120 categories subject to this requirernent. We have completed the RTRs for almost 60 of the categories, and RTRs for about 50 additional categories are overdue or will be due soon. Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 40 of 50 6. As described in the following paragraphs, SPPD is also primarily responsible for developing and reviewing federal air regulations that apply to stationary sources of air pollution under CAA sections I I I , I 12, and 129. 7 . CAA section 1 1 I (b) requires EPA to promulgate standards for certain pollutants. These standards, which apply to new sources, are known as new source performance standards (NSPS). EPA also is required to review and, if appropriate, revise each NSPS every 8 years. There are about 70 NSPS that are subject to this ongoing requirement. These projects typically require a comprehensive review of the source category which includes deterrnining whether substantive changes or improvements to the standards are needed. An estimated 1 1 staff in SPPD (full- time equivalents) work on the review and revision of NSPS, but signifrcantly more staff would be needed to conduct all of the statutorily required reviews. SPPD continues to prioritize and conduct these reviews as staff and contractor resources allow. 8. Under CAA section 112, EPA is required to identify and list categories of stationary sources that emit any of the 187 hazardous air pollutants (HAp) listed in CAA section 112(bXl) (or any HAP subsequently added by EPA) and then to develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (N.ESHAP), for those source categories by specifred statutory deadlines. These actions are largely completed, although several NESHAP are still irr litigation and Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 41 of 50 several others have been vacated or remanded by the court of appeals. An estimated l5 staff in SPPD (full-tirne equivalents) are working on NESHAP (not including RTRs). The NESHAP that apply to major stationary sources of HAP ernissions, along with a subset of NESHAP that apply to smaller area sources of HAP ernissions, are referred to as MACT standards, and EPA is required to perform the RTR review for all MACT standards as mentioned in paragraph 5. The other NESHAP, which apply to most of the categories of "area" or non-major sources, are referred to as generally available control standards (GACT) and these standards are subject only to the CAA section 112(dX6) technology review and not to the CAA section ll2(Ð(2) risk review, as described in paragraph 9. 9. There are about 60 source categories that are only subject to the CAA section 112(dX6) technology review requirement. The original rules for these source categories were mostly prornulgated between2007 and 2009. To date, EPA has priorilized conducting the technology reviews for those source categories that are also subject to the residual risk review requirement. 10. SPPD is responsible for develqping standards under CAA section 129 for solid waste incinerators. SPPD has already prornulgated rnost of the statutorily required rules, although several are subject to ongoing litigation. SPPD is also responsible for promulgating federal plans associated with the section 129 standards. An estim ated 4 staff in SPPD (full+ime equivalents) work on aspects of Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 42 of 50 the section 129 standards. As noted above, all section 129 rules are subject to the requirement to conduct risk reviews of the technology based standards. These rules are also subject to a technology review requirement although under section 129 such reviews are required at 5 year intervals. The staff resources devoted to the review of the section 129 rules are included in the resources we have identified for the RTRs generally. 11. Other activities perforrned by SPPD include: (l) Developing existing source performance standards under CAA section 1l l(d); (2) Reviewing and revising (if necessary) emissions factors used for estimating emissions of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen every 3 years as required under section 130 of the CAA; (3) Responding to petitions to add and remove HAPs from the list in CAA section 112(b) of the CAA and rnajor sources from the list in CAA section 112(c); and (4) Periodically reviewing volatile organic compound rules and Control Techniques Guidelines developed under CAA section 183(e). 12. In addition to reviewing, revising and developing regulations and performing other statutorily prescribed actions as described above, SPPD provides programmatic support for these actions. While these activities are not specifically mandated by the statute, SPPD believes they are necessary to supporl issuance and implementation of the actions that are prescribed by the statute. These activities Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 43 of 50 include providing technical expertise and other support for litigation on the rules developed by SPPD; responding to Freedom of Information Act requests; responding to Congressional inquiries; providing technical expertise and guidance to resolve issues concerning irnplementation of rules developed by SPPD; optirnizing and updating procedures and systems used to develop rules and improved efficiency, including quality assurance tools for large data files, comment summary systems, guidance development, and electronic data submittal systems, such as systems for stationary sources to submit emissions data; performing stakeholder outreach, including webinars, other presentations, hotlines, and face-to-face meetings to communicate the requirements of new regulations; and supporting activities, undertaken by other parts of EPA, to implement the rules written by SPPD. These types of activities are performed by rnost of the technical staff in SPPD as part of their general duties concerning rules and actions for which they are responsible or part of a team. Overall, an estimated l9 SPPD staff (full- tirne equivalents) work on these other projects and activities. 13. In addition to the activities described above that are prescribed by the statute or that are related to actions prescribed by the statute, SPPD does perform cliscretionary actions. Historically, most of SPPD's work involves developing, irnplementing and reviewing statutorily required regulations. The discretionary items that SPPD generally undertakes include many of the types of activities that Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 44 of 50 are expected of high perforrning organizations that are focused on serving clients. Some examples include: o Professional developrnent of SPPD staff; o Attendance at technical conferences; o Development of databases and information technology systerns for enabling transparency and access to information related to our programs. These types of activities constitute a srnall percentage of SPPD's work that is difficult to estimate but is not appreciable. 14. Adrninistration priorities also can result in SPPD being tasked with certain additional activities that are not required by statute, including development of regulations. Over the past five years, SPPD has expended significant resources on one such action, the Clean Power Plan. Because the Clean Power Plan was developed under the authority of CAA section 111, the adrninistration tasked SPPD with managing the rulemaking process for the plan, the developrnent of which relied on resources from many offices across the agency. The rule was finalized in 2015 and the staff who worked on that rule have now been assigned to work on other projects as described in paragraphs 5 thru I I above. 15. In developing RTR actions, SPPD relies on resources in other parts of fhe agency, as well as contractor resources, to ensure that we engage individuals Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 45 of 50 with the needed expertise to resolve the multitude of issues that may arise. As described above and in rny earlier declaration, development of an RTR rulemaking requires the involvement of numerous individuals with different skill sets. The schedule provided in rny previous declaration to this coutt inclucles leveraging available resources from outside of SPPD to assist with various issues and to serve on the project workgroups, which are described in rny earlier declaration. Most critically, the Health and Environmental Impacts Division (HEID) within OAQPS also has significant responsibilities related to the RTR projects. The risk assessments described in my earlier declaration are conducted by HEID's Air Toxics Assessment Group, and econornic analyses are conducted by HEID's Air Economics Group. Overall, g HEID staff work on RTR projects. Of these, about 6 HEID staff (full-time equivalents) scientists and engineers serve as risk assessment leads, and 3 HEID staff (full-time equivalents) serve as leacl economists. In recent years, HEID has conducted day-to-day risk and economic project activities for between 8 and 1 I RTR source categories per year. This level of suppotl is near HEID's capacity to provide such support. Other workgroup members include staff fi om: ( 1) the Office of General Counsel, who provide legal advice and review; (2) the Office of Research Development, who provide additional technical supporl, evaluate health benchmark information for various pollutants, and help ensure consistency with other Agency actions; (3) the Office of Policy, who evaluate tt Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 46 of 50 consistency across EPA programs and coordinate review with the Office of Management and Budget; (4) the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, who help to ensure that rules are written in a manner than can be easily understood and implemented; and (5) regional offices who have direct experience with the industrial facilities being regulated. We also make full use of all available contract resources when conducting RTR projects. Contractors provide support in many ways, including conducting technical analyses, drafting technical melnoranda explaining those analyses, summarizing comments, and other non- decisional aspects of rulemaking. 16. SPPD leverages resources from other parts of the Agency as explained above; however, the division generally cannot rely on other staff within the Agency or on contractors to perform the tasks currently performed by SPPD staff. As noted, SPPD is a division within the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS), which is part of the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for implernenting the CAA. Each of the offices with OAR is responsible for implementing specific CAA programs and many of those programs are subject to statutory deadlines. Even assuming those offices have resources devoted to activities that could be considered discretionary, the staff do not have expertise that would allow them to step into the shoes of the t2 Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 47 of 50 experts in SPPD with little to no training. The offices outside OAQPS include staff with expertise in significantly different programs, such as mobile sources and stratospheric ozone protection. Even within OAQPS, the other offices typically have significantly different expertise, such as developing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and working with states on developing plans to rneet the NAAQS. The staff responsible for RTR rulemakingare doing a specialized job that requires specialized training and experience. An environmental engineering or environmental science background, along with expertise in the industrial sectors being regulated are necessary in order to effectively lead RTR projects. It also is important to note that contractors cannot perform any "inherently governmental" tasks, such as selecting regulatory options and establishing policy, associated with RTR rulemaking. Finally, the time that is needed to conduct the individual tasks cannot be shorfened by the addition of more staff or contractor resources in rnany instances. For example, the length of the public comment period is prescribed by the statute; the time to perform the risk modeling is dependent on technical constraints; and the tirne to collect data from industry is dependent on limitations of the individual companies, including the time it takes to perform testing, if required. 13 Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 48 of 50 17. In summary, due to SPPD's considerable workload, the available staff, and budgetry constraints, SPPD must prioritize work, and it is usually the case that the available resources are insufficient to allow all of the required work to be completed in a timely fashion. SO DECLARED: Dared: slr /t+ t4 Attachment 1 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 49 of 50 Attachment 2. Summary of Time Needed to Complete All RTR Projects Finalized Since 2012 SPPD Group Source Category No. of source categories 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 1 2/4/2010 8/23/2011 8/16/2012 12.0 30.8 None FIG Oil and Natural Gas Production 1 2/4/2010 8/23/2011 8/16/2012 12.0 30.8 None MIG Chromium Electroplating 3 10/1/2009 10/21/2010 9/19/2012 23.3 36.1 None MIG Steel Pickling 1 10/1/2009 10/21/2010 9/19/2012 23.3 36.1 None RCG Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 1 3/18/2011 1/9/2012 3/27/2014 26.9 36.8 None RCG Polyether Polyols Production 1 3/18/2011 1/9/2012 3/27/2014 26.9 36.8 None RCG Polymers and Resins IV 5 3/18/2011 1/9/2012 3/27/2014 26.9 36.8 None MMG Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 1 4/15/2011 11/4/2013 8/15/2014 9.5 40.6 Survey RCG Off-Site Waste Recovery Operations 1 10/3/2011 5/30/2014 3/18/2015 9.7 42.1 Survey RCG Acrylic/ Modacrylic Fibers 1 2/27/2011 1/9/2014 10/8/2014 9.1 44.0 None RCG Polycarbonates Production 1 2/27/2011 1/9/2014 10/8/2014 9.1 44.0 None RCG Polymers and Resins III 1 2/27/2011 1/9/2014 10/8/2014 9.1 44.0 None MIG Secondary Lead Smelters 1 7/2007 5/19/2011 1/05/2012 8 54 Survey, emission testing MMG Mineral Wool 1 1/15/2010 11/25/2011 7/29/2015 44.7 67.4 Survey, emission testing MMG Wool Fiberglassb 1 1/15/2010 11/25/2011 7/29/2015 44.7 67.4 Survey, emission testing NRG Pulp and Paper I and III 2 2/15/2007 6/15/2011 9/11/2012 15.1 67.8 ICR RCG Petroleum Refineries 2 4/11/2010 5/5/2014 12/1/2015 19.2 68.7 ICR, emission testing MIG Ferroalloys Production 1 9/23/2009 11/23/2011 6/30/2015 43.8 70.2 Survey, emission testing MIG Secondary Aluminum 1 9/15/2009 1/30/2012 8/14/2015 43.1 72.0 ICR, emission testing MIG Primary Aluminum 1 9/15/2009 12/6/2011 10/15/2015 47.0 74.0 Survey, emission testing MMG Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacturing 1 5/15/2008 11/7/2014 8/19/2015 9.5 88.4 Survey, emission testing MMG Phosphoric Acid Production 1 5/15/2008 11/7/2014 8/19/2015 9.5 88.4 Survey, emission testing MMG Aerospace 1 3/29/2007 2/17/2015 12/7/2015 9.8 105.8 ICR, emission testing a Start dates estimated based on documented early activities on projects for each group. b On July 29, 2015, 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 December 17, 2016, for EPA to issue an additional final rule addressing the outstanding issues. Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 50 of 50 Get Updated Docket This docket was retrieved from the court on 9/26/2016 Track Docket Activity CourtLink can alert you when there is new activity in this case Search for Similar Start a new search based on the characteristics of this case Set Alert for Similar Dockets CourtLink alerts you when there are new cases that match characteristics of this case Switch Client | My Briefcase | Order Runner Documents | Lexis Advance | Lexis.com | Sign Out | Welcome, Eileen McDonough Single Search - with Terms and Connectors Enter keywords - Search multiple dockets & documents Search Info My CourtLink Search Dockets & Documents Track Alert Strategic Profiles Breaking Complaints My Account Court Info Search > Docket Search > Sierra Club v. Jackson New Docket Search Search in Same Court Docket Tools [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 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 Page 1 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 8 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 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 Page 2 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 8 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 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: Documents Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap Items 1 to 128 of 128 Page 3 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 8 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 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 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) Page 4 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 8 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) 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 Page 5 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 8 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) Online 75 11/10/2010 Minute Entry: Status Conference held. Stipulation and Order to Govern Proceedings previously filed. The 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 Page 6 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 8 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). (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) Online 120 01/19/2017 NOTICE by Lisa P. Jackson, Gina McCarthy re 96 Order Notice Only-No Court Action Required (Hill, Leslie) (Filed on 1/19/2017) (Entered: 01/19/2017) Events since last full update Runner -- 01/20/2017 Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. Correct event is Stipulation WITHOUT Proposed Order. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 120 Notice (Other) filed by Gina McCarthy et al. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017) Events since last full update Items 1 to 128 of 128 Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap Dockets may include case events that have occurred since the docket was last updated. For a comprehensive view of the case events, please update the docket New Docket Search Search in Same Court Page 7 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 8 | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Pricing | Privacy | Customer Support - 1-888-311-1966 | Copyright © 2017 LexisNexis®. All rights reserved. Page 8 of 8LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/14/2017https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/Search/CaseNumberSearch_Result.aspx?SearchPackageID... Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 8 Switch Client | My Briefcase | Order Runner Documents | Lexis Advance | Lexis.com | Sign Out | Welcome, Eileen McDonough Single Search - with Terms and Connectors Enter keywords - Search multiple dockets & documents Search Info My CourtLink Search Dockets & Documents Track Alert Strategic Profiles Breaking Complaintsi My Account Court Info Search > Docket Search > Sierra Club v. Jackson New Docket Search Search in Same Court Docket Tools This docket was retrieved from the court on 4/5/2017 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] A LexisNexis Case Law Summary, related documents or opinions are available for this case. In order to view this information you must have a LexisNexis account. When you view this information standard LexisNexis charges will apply. To view this information click on the LexisNexis Cite below. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14923 and 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53324 and 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5316 If you do not have a LexisNexis account click here for subscription information. Additional resources for cases like this may be found in our LexisNexis Practice Area communities. Docket US District Court Civil Docket U.S. District - District of Columbia (Washington, DC) 1:01cv1537 Sierra Club v. Jackson This case was retrieved from the court on Wednesday, April 05, 2017 Update Now Date Filed: 07/16/2001 Assigned To: Judge Paul L. Friedman Referred To: Nature of suit: Environmental (893) Cause: Clear Air Act (Emission Standards) Lead Docket: None Other Docket: 06-05224 Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Class Code: OPEN Closed: Statute: 42:7604 Jury Demand: None Demand Amount: $0 NOS Description: Environmental Litigants Attorneys Sierra Club Plaintiff James Samuel Pew LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED EARTHJUSTICE 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Nw Suite 702 Washington , DC 20036 USA (202) 667-4500 Fax: (202) 667-2356 Email:Jpew@earthjustice.Org Neil Edward Gormley LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED EARTHJUSTICE 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Nw Suite 702 Washington , DC 20036 USA (202) 667-4500 Email:Ngormley@earthjustice.Org Christine T. Whitman Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency [Term: 09/27/2004] Defendant Scott Jeffrey Jordan LEAD ATTORNEY [Term: 04/25/2005] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-9275 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Email:Scott.Jordan@usdoj.Gov Page 1 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 11 Michael O. Leavitt [Term: 04/25/2005] Defendant Eileen T. McDonough LEAD ATTORNEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-3126 Fax: (202) 353-7763 Email:Eileen.Mcdonough@usdoj.Gov Scott Jeffrey Jordan LEAD ATTORNEY [Term: 04/25/2005] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-9275 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Email:Scott.Jordan@usdoj.Gov Stephen L. Johnson Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Term: 02/19/2009] Defendant Eileen T. McDonough LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-3126 Fax: (202) 353-7763 Email:Eileen.Mcdonough@usdoj.Gov Lisa P. Jackson Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency [Term: 07/10/2013] Defendant Eileen T. McDonough LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-3126 Fax: (202) 353-7763 Email:Eileen.Mcdonough@usdoj.Gov Angeline Purdy ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section 601 D Street, Nw Suite 8000 Washington , DC 20004 USA (202) 514-0996 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Email:Angeline.Purdy@usdoj.Gov Robert Perciasepe In his official capacity as Acting Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency [Term: 08/11/2013] Defendant Eileen T. McDonough LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-3126 Fax: (202) 353-7763 Email:Eileen.Mcdonough@usdoj.Gov Gina Mccarthy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency Defendant Eileen T. McDonough LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington , DC 20026-3986 USA (202) 514-3126 Fax: (202) 353-7763 Email:Eileen.Mcdonough@usdoj.Gov National Paint And Coatings Association Intervenor Defendant Alison Ann Keane LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED AMERICAN COATING ASSOCIATION Government Affairs 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, Nw Washington , DC 20005 USA (202) 462-6272 Fax: (202) 462-8549 State of Nevada Movant William J. Frey LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA 100 North Street Carson City , NV 89701 USA (775) 684-1229 Page 2 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 11 Fax: (775) 684-1103 Email:Bfrey@ag.Nv.Gov Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies Intervenor Defendant Alexandra Dapolito Dunn LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED NATIONAL ASSOCIATION PF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES 1816 Jefferson Place, Nw Washington , DC 20036-2505 USA (202) 833-2672 Fax: (202) 833-4657 Email:Adunn@nacwa.Org Jeffrey Alan Knight LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 1200 17th Street, Nw Washington , DC 20036 USA (202) 663-9152 Fax: (202) 663-8007 Email:Jeffrey.Knight@pillsburylaw.Com Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Intervenor Defendant A. Penna LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED VAN NESS FELDMAN, P.C. 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, Nw Washington , DC 20007 USA (202) 298-1800 Fax: 338-2416 Coalition For Clean Air Implementation Intervenor Defendant Harold Patrick Quinn , Jr. LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION 101 Constitution Avenue, Nw Suite 500 East Washington , DC 20001 USA (202) 463-2652 Fax: (202) 463-2609 Email:Hquinn@nma.Org Jeffrey Alan Knight LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 1200 17th Street, Nw Washington , DC 20036 USA (202) 663-9152 Fax: (202) 663-8007 Email:Jeffrey.Knight@pillsburylaw.Com Michele Ball Morhenn LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED SHAW PITTMAN 2300 N Street, Nw Washington , DC 20037 USA (202) 454-7407 Fax: 202-663-8007 Email:Michele.Morhenn@shawpittman.Com William F. Pedersen , Jr. ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street, Nw Suite 600 Washington , DC 20005 USA (202) 654-6200 Fax: (202) 654-6211 Email:Bpedersen@perkinscoie.Com American Chemistry Council Intervenor Defendant Michele Ball Morhenn LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED SHAW PITTMAN 2300 N Street, Nw Washington , DC 20037 USA (202) 454-7407 Fax: 202-663-8007 Email:Michele.Morhenn@shawpittman.Com Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance Inc Intervenor Defendant W. Caffey Norman LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 2550 M Street, Nw Washington , DC 20037 USA (202) 457-5270 Fax: (202) 457-6315 Email:Cnorman@pattonboggs.Com Three Affiliated Tribes of The Fourth Berthold Reservation Movant Hans Walker , Jr. LEAD ATTORNEY;ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER Page 3 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 11 Documents 2120 L Street, Nw Suite 700 Washington , DC 20037 USA (202) 822-8282 Fax: 202-296-8836 Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap Items 1 to 275 of 275 Availability No. Date Proceeding Text Filter Sourc Runner 1 07/16/2001 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB; attachment (1) (bm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) Runner 07/16/2001 SUMMONS (3) issued to federal party federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN , and non-parties: U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (bm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) Runner 2 07/16/2001 NOTIFICATION OF RELATED CASE: Case related to Case No(s): CA 93-125; CA 95-627 and CA 98-1610 (bm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) Runner 3 07/16/2001 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB (bm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) Runner 4 09/12/2001 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN to extend time to 11/16/01 to answer complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 09/13/2001) Online 5 09/18/2001 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 11/16/01 to answer complaint [1-1] [4-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN ; Answer extended to 11/16/01 for CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN (N) (dam) (Entered: 09/18/2001) Runner 6 10/26/2001 MOTION filed for ASSOC OF METRO SEWER to intervene ; EXHIBIT (ANSWER, RULE 26.1 STATEMENT) (cdw) (Entered: 10/30/2001) Runner 7 11/07/2001 MOTION filed by federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN to extend time to 01/31/02 to answer complaint [1-1] (dam) (Entered: 11/13/2001) Runner 8 11/13/2001 MOTION filed for ALLIANCE AUTO MAN to intervene ; declarations (1); EXHIBIT (ANSWER, R109certificate) (cdw) (Entered: 11/15/2001) Runner 11/16/2001 CASE REASSIGNED to Judge Paul L. Friedman (bm) (Entered: 11/26/2001) Runner 9 11/30/2001 MOTION filed for COALITION CLEAN AIR, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY to intervene as defendants ; Attachment (1); EXHIBITS (ANSWER & RULE 26.1) (nmr) (Entered: 12/03/2001) Runner 10 12/03/2001 MOTION filed by movant NATL PAINT/COATINGS to intervene as party defendant ; EXHIBIT (ANSWER and RULE 26.1) (bm) (Entered: 12/04/2001) Runner 11 12/06/2001 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by intervenor-defendant ASSOC OF METRO SEWER. (nmr) (Entered: 12/11/2001) Runner 12 12/06/2001 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by intervenor-defendant ASSOC OF METRO SEWER (nmr) (Entered: 12/11/2001) Online 13 12/21/2001 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting in part, denying in part motion to intervene as party defendant [10-1], NATIONAL PAINT AND COATINGS ASSN; denying pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of FRCP and granting pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) of FRCP; granting in part, denying in part motion for COALITION CLEAN AIR, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY to intervene as defendants [9-1] denying pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of FRCP and granting pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) of FRCP (N) (bm) (Entered: 12/21/2001) Runner 36 12/21/2001 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by intervenor-defendant NATL PAINT/COATINGS . (td) (Entered: 07/31/2002) Runner 37 12/21/2001 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by intervenor-defendant NATL PAINT/COATINGS (td) (Entered: 07/31/2002) Runner 14 01/11/2002 MOTION filed by movant COALITION CLEAN AIR, movant AMERICAN CHEMISTRY for Coalition Clean for Clean Air Implementation and American Chemistry Council to intervene ; EXHIBITS (Answer and Rule 26.1 certificate) (td) (Entered: 01/14/2002) Online 15 01/23/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 01/31/02 to answer complaint [1-1] [7-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN; Answer extended to 1/31/02 for CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN (N) (bm) (Entered: 01/23/2002) Online 16 01/23/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting in part, denying in part motion for ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURES to intervene [8-1]; denying pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the FRCP and granting pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) of the FRCP (N) (bm) (Entered: 01/23/2002) Online 17 01/23/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion for ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES to intervene [6-1] pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) of the FRCP (N) (bm) (Entered: 01/23/2002) Runner 18 01/23/2002 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by intervenor-defendant ALLIANCE AUTO MAN . (td) (Entered: 01/25/2002) Runner 19 01/23/2002 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by intervenor-defendant ALLIANCE AUTO MAN (td) (Entered: 01/25/2002) Runner 20 01/23/2002 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by intervenor-defendant ASSOC OF METRO SEWER . (td) (Entered: 01/25/2002) Runner 21 01/23/2002 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by intervenor-defendant ASSOC OF METRO SEWER (td) (Entered: 01/25/2002) Online 22 01/29/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion by defendant extending time to 3/29/02 to answer complaint [1-1]; Answer extended to for CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN . (N) (bm) (Entered: 01/29/2002) Runner 27 03/06/2002 MOTION filed for HALOGENATED SOLVENTS to intervene as a defendant ; EXHIBITS (answer and 109 certificate) (td) (Entered: 04/04/2002) Online 23 03/25/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: directing the Clerk's Office not accept for filing Hal Quinn's entry of appearance; the Court will consider an appropriate motion in conformance with the Rules of this Court if and when one is filed. (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/25/2002) Runner 24 03/27/2002 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN to extend time to May 31, 2002 to answer complaint [1-1] to provide time for settlement discussions (jf) (Entered: 03/28/2002) Runner 26 03/28/2002 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for movant COALITION CLEAN AIR by Jeffrey A. Knight, Harold Patrick Quinn Jr., William F. Pedersen Jr. (jf) (Entered: 04/03/2002) Online 25 04/02/2002 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to extend time to 5/31/02 to answer complaint [1-1] to provide time for settlement discussions [24-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN; Answer extended to 5/31/02 for CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN (N) (bm) (Entered: 04/02/2002) Online 28 04/29/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : denyiny without prejudice motion for HALOGENATED SOLVENTS to intervene as a defendant pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the FRCP [27-1]; if movant complies with the applicable FRCP, it may refile its motion for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2) of the FRCP (N) (bm) (Entered: 04/29/2002) Runner 34 04/29/2002 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by intervenor-defendant HALOGENATED SOLVENTS . (td) (Entered: 07/31/2002) Page 4 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 11 Runner 35 04/29/2002 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interests by intervenor-defendant HALOGENATED SOLVENTS (td) (Entered: 07/31/2002) Runner 29 04/30/2002 MOTION filed by movant HALOGENATED SOLVENTS to intervene as a defendant ; EXHIBIT (Rule 109) (td) (Entered: 05/02/2002) Runner 31 05/30/2002 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB, federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN to consolidate cases , and to stay to prepare consent decree and case management schedule. (td) (Entered: 06/06/2002) Online 30 06/03/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting motion to consolidate and motion for stay; staying this case pending the Court's decision on the consolidation motion (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/03/2002) Runner 06/20/2002 REMARK: ALL DOCKET ENTRIES AS OF THIS DATE WILL BE FOUND IN THE LEAD CASE (bm) (Entered: 06/24/2002) Runner 32 06/20/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to consolidate cases 01-1537 [23-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01578, granting motion to consolidate cases with 01-1537 [21-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01578, granting joint motion to consolidate case with 01cv1537 [11-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01582, granting joint motion to consolidate cases [12-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01582, granting joint motion to consolidate case with 01cv1537 [17-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01597, granting joint motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the courts decision [17-2] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01597; consolidating CA 01-1548, 01-1558, 01-1569, 01-1578, 01-1582, and 01-1597 with 01-1537; staying the consolidated for sixty days, until 7/29/02. (N) (bm) Modified on 06/24/2002 (Entered: 06/24/2002) Runner 06/21/2002 CASE REASSIGNED to Judge Paul L. Friedman (td) (Entered: 06/26/2002) Runner 06/21/2002 CASE REASSIGNED to Judge Paul L. Friedman (td) (Entered: 06/26/2002) Online 33 07/31/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting joint motion staying case until 9/30/02 (N) (bm) (Entered: 07/31/2002) Runner 38 09/30/2002 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537, federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537 for further stay to complete consent decree and prepare proposed case management schedule. (td) (Entered: 10/01/2002) Online 39 10/03/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting joint motion for further stay of consolidated cases until 10/30/02 [38-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537 (N) (bm) (Entered: 10/03/2002) Runner 41 10/30/2002 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537, federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537 for further stay to complete consent decree and prepare proposed case management schedule. (td) (Entered: 11/05/2002) Online 40 11/04/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting joint motion for further stay; staying consolidated cases until 12/6/02 (N) (bm) (Entered: 11/04/2002) Runner 42 12/04/2002 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537, federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537 for further stay , and and referral to Magistrate to conduct mediation (cdw) (Entered: 12/06/2002) Online 43 12/09/2002 ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting joint motion for further stay [42-1] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA in 1:01-cv-01537; granting joint motion and referral to Magistrate to conduct mediation [42-2] by CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN, SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537; referring settlement discussions to Magistrate Judge Facciola ; at the conclusions of those settlement discussions, the parties shall provide the Court with a report on the status of the case, and if the cse is not settled, a proposed case management order to govern further proceedings. (N) (bm) (Entered: 12/09/2002) Runner 12/09/2002 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for settlement discussions (cp) (Entered: 12/13/2002) Runner 12/26/2002 SCHEDULING NOTICE: settlement conference set 10:00 2/5/03 in 1:01-cv-01537, in 1:01-cv-01548, in 1:01-cv-01558, in 1:01-cv-01569, in 1:01-cv-01578, in 1:01-cv-01582, in 1:01-cv-01597 ; before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola Chambers, room 1426, First Floor. (ldc) (Entered: 12/26/2002) Runner 44 03/21/2003 NOTICE by federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537 of lodging of proposed partial consent decree pending solicitation of public comment by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (bm) (Entered: 03/31/2003) Runner 46 05/19/2003 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB in 1:01-cv-01537, federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537 to enter revised partial consent decree. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003) Free 45 05/22/2003 REVISED PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE by plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01537, plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01548, plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01558, plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01569, plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01578, plaintiff SIERRA and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01-cv-01582, plaintiff SIERRA CLUB and federal defendant CHRISTINE T. WHITMAN in 1:01- cv-01597 (bm) Modified on 6/9/2004 (rje, ). (Entered: 05/22/2003) Online 47 11/25/2003 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases 03-2408 by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 11/25/2003) Runner 12/05/2003 MINUTE ORDER granting 47 joint motion to consolidate. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 5, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(ma) (Entered: 12/05/2003) Runner 05/07/2004 Set/Reset Hearings: A settlement conference has been set for 6/8/2004 at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(lcjf1, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004) Runner 06/08/2004 Set/Reset Hearings: A Settlement Conference has been set for 8/23/2004 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF, 1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF,1:01-cv-01582-PLF, 1:01-cv-01597-PLF(lcjf1, ) Modified on 6/9/2004 (rje, ). (Entered: 06/08/2004) Runner 09/27/2004 NOTICE OF HEARING: Status Conference set for 10/8/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Paul L. Friedman. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(bm) (Entered: 09/27/2004) Runner 10/08/2004 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul L. Friedman : Status Conference held on 10/8/2004. Parties to file a joint briefing schedule by 11/10/2004. (Court Reporter Lisa Griffith.) Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv- 01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(bm) (Entered: 10/08/2004) Online 48 11/10/2004 Joint MOTION for Order Entering Case Management Order by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Jordan, Scott) (Entered: 11/10/2004) Runner 11/17/2004 MINUTE ORDER granting 48 parties' joint motion for case management order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on November 17, 2004. Associated Cases: 1:01- cv-01537-PLF-JMF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569- PLF,1:01-cv-01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(ma) (Entered: 11/17/2004) Online 49 01/28/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .NEW DOCUMENT NO. IS 50. . . .STATUS REPORT AND JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF (Jordan, Scott) Modified on 1/31/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 01/28/2005) Online 50 01/28/2005 STATUS REPORT AND JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (CORRECTED VERSION) by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv- 01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Jordan, Scott) (Entered: 01/28/2005) Runner 01/31/2005 MINUTE ORDER granting joint motion for further case management order (corrected version). Parties shall have an additional 30 days for their discusions and shall provide the Court with a further status report concerning the parties' discussions anda proposed order for further proceedings on or before February 28, 2005. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 31, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(ma, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005) Online 51 02/28/2005 STATUS REPORT and Motion for Further Case Management Order by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 02/28/2005) Online 52 03/03/2005 ORDER: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER . Signed by Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan for Judge Paul L. Friedman on 3/3/04. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597- PLF(hs,) (Entered: 03/03/2005) Online 53 03/21/2005 STATUS REPORT (Joint) and Motion for Briefing Schedule & Oral Argument by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule & Oral Argument)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582- PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 03/21/2005) Online 54 03/21/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Filing a Certificate of Service for the Joint Status Report and Motion for Briefing Schedule & Oral Argument by SIERRA CLUB re 53 Status Report, Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv- 01597-PLF(Pew, James) Modified on 3/22/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 03/21/2005) Online 55 03/21/2005 MOTION for Briefing Schedule and Oral Argument by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(nmw, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005) Runner 03/22/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. 54 was entered in error and has been refiled as part of Document No. 55. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(nmw, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005) Runner 03/22/2005 ORDER granting 55 join status motion for briefing schedule and oral argument. Opening brief of Sierra Club is due on or before April 27, 2005; opening brief of EPA is due on or before May 27, 2005; intervenors' brief, if any, is due on or before June 17, 2005; opposition brief of Sierra Club is due on or before July 15, 2005; reply brief of EPA, if any, is due on or before August 4, 2005; reply brief of Sierra Club, if any, is due on or before August 18, 2005; oral argument shall be held on September 12, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 22, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558- PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005) Page 5 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 11 Online 56 03/30/2005 MOTION for Extension of Time to meet June 14, 2005 Consent Decree Deadline by Three Months and for Expedited Consideration by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of James Berlow)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578- PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Jordan, Scott) (Entered: 03/30/2005) Runner 04/01/2005 ORDER granting 56 EPA's unopposed motion for three-month extension up to and includiing September 14, 2005 of June 14, 2005 consent decree deadline and for expedited consideration. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 1, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01- cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 04/01/2005) Online 57 04/25/2005 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Briefing Schedule by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537- PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 04/25/2005) Online 58 04/25/2005 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 04/25/2005) Online 59 04/25/2005 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY by MICHAEL O. LEAVITT Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 04/25/2005) Runner 04/26/2005 MINUTE ORDER granting 57 joint status report and motion to modify briefing schedule. Opening brief of Sierra Club is due on or before April 27, 2005; the opening brief of EPA is due on or before May 27, 2005; the intervenors' brief is due on or before June 17, 2005; the opposition brief of Sierra Club is due on or before August 1, 2005; the reply brief of EPA is due on or before August 15, 2005; and the reply brief of Sierra Club is due on or before August 25, 2005. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 26, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01- cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 04/26/2005) Runner 04/27/2005 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER granting 57 joint status report and motion to modify briefing schedule. The opening brief of Sierra Club is due on or before May 11, 2005; the opening brief of EPA is due on or before June 10, 2005; the intervenors' brief, if any, is due on or before July 1, 2005; the opposition brief of Sierra Club is due on or before August 1, 2005; the reply brief of EPA, if any, is due on or before August 15, 2005; and the reply brief of Sierra Club, if any, is due on or before August 25, 2005. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 26, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv- 01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 04/27/2005) Online 60 05/11/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Summary Judgment by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) Modified on 5/12/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 05/11/2005) Online 61 05/11/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits and Declarations by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548- PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) Modified on 5/12/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 05/11/2005) Online 62 05/11/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Summary Judgment Proposed Order by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) Modified on 5/12/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 05/11/2005) Runner 05/12/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document numbers 60, 61 and 62 were entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading as one document. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv- 01597-PLF(td, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005) Free 63 05/12/2005 MOTION for Summary Judgment by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits# 2 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548- PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(nmw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2005) Online 64 06/01/2005 NOTICE OF COUNSEL'S FIRM NAME CHANGE by COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL Associated Cases: 1:01-cv- 01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Knight, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/01/2005) Online 65 06/10/2005 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 63 MOTION for Summary Judgment by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01- cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/10/2005) Online 66 06/13/2005 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .ENTERED TWICE. . . .Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Remedy by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Crossmotion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit Revised Partial Consent Decree# 3 Exhibit Declaration of Steve Page# 4 Exhibit Conference Report# 5 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01- cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) Modified on 6/14/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 06/13/2005) Free 67 06/13/2005 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Remedy by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Crossmotion on Remedy and In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit Revised Partial Consent Decree# 3 Exhibit Declaration of Steve Page# 4 Exhibit Conference Report# 5 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv- 01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/13/2005) Runner 06/14/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Counsel has been notified to do an electronic entry of opposition which is attached to document 67 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Remedy Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv- 01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(td, ) (Entered: 06/14/2005) Runner 06/14/2005 MINUTE ORDER granting 65 defendant's unopposed motion for enlargement of time up to and including June 13, 2005 to file its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 14, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537- PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 06/14/2005) Free 68 06/14/2005 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 63 reference to memorandum and exhibits filed in support of EPA's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket 67) filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582- PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/14/2005) Free 69 06/28/2005 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Out of Time the Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute in Support of Cross-motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EPA's Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute# 2 Exhibit EPA's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute# 3 Text of Proposed Order) Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/28/2005) Runner 06/30/2005 MINUTE ORDER granting 69 defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file out of time the statement of material facts not in dispute in support of cross-motion for summary judgment and the response to plaintiff's statement of material facts not in dispute. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 30, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 06/30/2005) Free 70 07/30/2005 MOTION to Strike 67 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Remedy Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Steve Page by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582- PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 07/30/2005) Online 71 08/01/2005 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 67 filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit Two# 3 Exhibit Three# 4 Statement of Facts # 5 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 08/01/2005) Runner 08/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER that the motions hearing formerly scheduled for September 12, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. is now postponed to November 22, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 10, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578- PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 08/10/2005) Free 72 08/15/2005 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 70 to strike declaration filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:01- cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/15/2005) Free 73 08/15/2005 REPLY to opposition to motion re 67 summary judgment on remedy filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/15/2005) Free 74 08/25/2005 REPLY to opposition to motion re 70 strike filed by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 08/25/2005) Free 75 08/25/2005 REPLY to opposition to motion re 63 Summary Judgment filed by SIERRA CLUB. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 08/25/2005) Online 76 09/07/2005 NOTICE Of Association Name Change by ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Dunn, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/07/2005) Online 77 11/20/2005 NOTICE Of Revision of CAA Section 183(e) List by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON re 75 Reply to opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Federal Register Notice) Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/20/2005) Online 78 11/20/2005 NOTICE Of Subsequent Final Rule by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON re 75 Reply to opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Pt. 1# 2 Attachment; Pt. 2# 3 Attachment; Pt. 3# 4 Attachment; Pt. 4)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01- cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/20/2005) Runner 11/22/2005 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul L. Friedman : Motion Hearing held on 11/22/2005 re 63 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIERRA CLUB,, 67 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Remedy filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Linda L. Russo.) Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF (bm) (Entered: 11/22/2005) Online 79 12/01/2005 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Additional Authority by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Notice of Additional Authority# 3 Exhibit One# 4 Exhibit Two)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 12/01/2005) Runner 12/05/2005 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 motion of Sierra Club for leave to file notice of additional authority. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 5, 2005. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 12/05/2005) Free 80 03/31/2006 ORDER granting in part 63 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denying 67 defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, denying 70 plaintiff's motion to strike the declaration of Steve Page. Signed by Judge Paul L. on March 31, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558- PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597-PLF(MA) (Entered: 03/31/2006) Online 81 04/04/2006 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs and Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 1:01-cv-01537-PLF,1:01-cv-01548-PLF,1:01-cv-01558-PLF,1:01-cv-01569-PLF,1:01-cv- 01578-PLF, 1:01-cv-01582-PLF,1:01-cv-01597- PLF(Pew, James) (Entered: 04/04/2006) Page 6 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 11 Runner 04/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Sierra Club's motion for extension of time up to and including July 13, 2006 in which to request costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 7, 2006. (MA) (Entered: 04/07/2006) Free 82 05/26/2006 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. No Filing Fee. (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006) Online 83 07/10/2006 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs & Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Pew, James) (Entered: 07/10/2006) Runner 07/11/2006 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 82 Notice of Appeal (jf, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006) Runner 07/11/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 83 Sierra Club's second motion for extension of time up to and including October 11, 2006 in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 11, 2006. (MA) (Entered: 07/11/2006) Free 84 08/02/2006 OPINION denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 2, 2006. (MA) (Entered: 08/02/2006) Runner 08/07/2006 USCA Case Number 06-5224 for 82 Notice of Appeal filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON,. (jf, ) (Entered: 08/08/2006) Free 85 08/25/2006 MOTION to Amend/Correct 45 Miscellaneous Document,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Consent Decree by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Affidavit # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/25/2006) Online 86 08/25/2006 Joint MOTION to Expedite Consideration of EPA's Motion to Modify Conssent Decree and Establish Briefing Schedule by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/25/2006) Runner 08/28/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration of EPA's Motion to Modify the Consent Decree. EPA's deadline is stayed until December 1, 2006, unlesss the Court decides the Agency's Motion to Modify the Consent Decree prior to that date. Sierra Club shall file its opposition to EPA's Motion no later than September 22, 2006. EPA shall file its reply no later than September 28, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 8/28/06. (lcplf1) (Entered: 08/28/2006) Runner 08/28/2006 Set Deadlines: Responses due by 9/22/2006; Replies due by 9/28/2006. (mm) (Entered: 08/31/2006) Online 87 09/22/2006 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs And Attorneys Fees by SIERRA CLUB. (Pew, James) (Entered: 09/22/2006) Free 88 09/22/2006 RESPONSE to EPA Motion To Modify The Consent Decree filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1# 2 Exhibit Ex. 2# 3 Exhibit Ex. 3# 4 Certificate of Service)(Pew, James) (Entered: 09/22/2006) Free 89 09/22/2006 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 82 Notice of Appeal filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON,; It is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss appeal be granted and this case is hereby dismissed; USCA#06-5224 (jsc ) (Entered: 09/25/2006) Runner 09/25/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 87 Sierra Club's third motion for extension of time up to and including January 9, 2007 to file a request for costs and attorney fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 25, 2006. (MA) (Entered: 09/25/2006) Runner 09/25/2006 Set Deadlines: Sierra Club's Motion for Costs and Attorneys's Fees due by 1/9/2007. (mm) (Entered: 09/25/2006) Free 90 09/28/2006 REPLY to opposition to motion re 85 MOTION to Amend/Correct 45 Miscellaneous Document Consent Decree filed by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON. (McDonough, Eileen). (Entered: 09/28/2006) Free 91 10/17/2006 ORDER granting 85 Defendant's Motion to Modify Consent Decree. Paragraph 2(f)(ii) of the Consent Decree, which provides: (ii) For Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Stage I), the Administrator shall propose a rule on or before October 31, 2006, and promulgate a final rule by December 20, 2007, is hereby deleted from the Decree. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 10/17/2006. (mm) (Entered: 10/17/2006) Online 92 12/08/2006 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs & Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB. (Pew, James) (Entered: 12/08/2006) Runner 12/11/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 92 Sierra Club's fourth motion for extension of time up to and including April 9, 2007 in which to request costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 11, 2006. (MA) (Entered: 12/11/2006) Runner 12/11/2006 Set Deadline: Sierra Club's request for costs and attorneys' fees due by 4/9/2007. (mm) (Entered: 12/11/2006) Online 93 03/20/2007 MOTION for Extension of Time to In Which To Request Costs and Attorney's Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Pew, James) (Entered: 03/20/2007) Runner 03/22/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 93 Sierra Club's motion for extension of time up to and including July 9, 2007 in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 22, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 03/22/2007) Runner 03/22/2007 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees due by 7/9/2007. (mm) (Entered: 03/23/2007) Online 94 06/22/2007 MOTION for Extension of Time to In Which to Request Costs and Attorney's Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Pew, James) (Entered: 06/22/2007) Runner 06/25/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 94 Sierra Club's consent motion for extension of time up to and including September 7, 2007 in which a request for attorneys' fees and costs may be filed. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 25, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 06/25/2007) Runner 06/25/2007 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for attorneys' fees and costs due by 9/7/2007. (mm) (Entered: 06/26/2007) Online 95 08/29/2007 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs and Attorneys Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Pew, James) (Entered: 08/29/2007) Runner 08/30/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 95 plaintiff's seventh motion for extension of time up to and including December 6, 2007 in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 30, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 08/30/2007) Runner 08/30/2007 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees due by 12/6/2007. (mm) (Entered: 08/30/2007) Online 96 09/13/2007 Consent MOTION to Alter Judgment To Partly Extend Deadline of September 30, 2007 by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 09/13/2007) Online 97 09/13/2007 Consent MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion to AMend Judgment by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 09/13/2007) Runner 09/18/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 97 defendant's consent motion for expedited consideration of motion on consent to amend order of March 31, 2007. Defendant shall have up to and including November 15, 2007 to complete an action currently due on September 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 18, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 09/18/2007) Runner 09/18/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 96 defendant's consent motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Defendant shall sign a final rule pursuant to Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7511b(e), establishing standards for aerosol coatings products no later than November 15, 2007. Defendant shall complete its obligations with respect to all other "Group III" product categories pursuant to the order of March 31, 2006 by the current deadline of September 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 18, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 09/18/2007) Runner 09/18/2007 Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall have up to and including 11/15/2007 to complete an action currently due on 9/30/07. (mm) (Entered: 09/19/2007) Free 98 10/12/2007 Consent MOTION to Alter Judgment Order of March 31, 2006 by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 10/12/2007) Runner 10/15/2007 MINUTE ORDER granting 98 defendant's consent motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on October 15, 2007. (MA) (Entered: 10/15/2007) Online 99 11/15/2007 NOTICE Of Stipulation Modifying Consent Decree by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation Modifying Consent Decree)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/15/2007) Online 100 12/21/2007 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 12/21/2007) Runner 01/08/2008 MINUTE ORDER granting 100 defendant's unopposed motion to amend order of March 31, 2006 to require EPA to complete its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(c)(6), by March 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 8, 2008. (MA) (Entered: 01/08/2008) Runner 01/08/2008 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to complete its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(c)(6) by 3/31/2008. (mm) (Entered: 01/08/2008) 101 03/26/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Page 7 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 11 Online Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 03/26/2008) Runner 04/03/2008 MINUTE ORDER granting 101 defendant's unopposed motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 3, 2008. (MA) (Entered: 04/03/2008) Runner 04/03/2008 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to complete its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. section 7412(c)(6) by 5/30/2008. (mm) (Entered: 04/04/2008) Online 102 05/29/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 05/29/2008) Runner 05/30/2008 MINUTE ORDER granting 102 defendant's unopposed motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Paragraph 3 of the order is amended to require EPA to complete its obligations under CAA Section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(c)(6), by July 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on May 30, 2008. (MA) (Entered: 05/30/2008) Runner 05/30/2008 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to complete its obligations under CAA Section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(c)(6) by 7/30/2008. (mm) (Entered: 06/02/2008) Online 103 07/30/2008 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 07/30/2008) Runner 07/31/2008 MINUTE ORDER granting 103 defendant's' unopposed motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 31, 2008. (MA) (Entered: 07/31/2008) Online 104 09/17/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 09/17/2008) Free 105 09/19/2008 ORDER granting 104 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. Paragraph 3 of the Order is amended to require EPA to complete its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. section 7412(c)(6) by November 20, 2008.Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 9/19/2008. (mm) (Entered: 09/22/2008) Runner 09/19/2008 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to complete its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), 42 U.S.C. section 7412(c)(6) by 11/20/2008. (mm) (Entered: 09/22/2008) Free 106 11/10/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/10/2008) Free 107 11/10/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Motion to Amend 2006 Order (Para. 1(e)) by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/10/2008) Online 108 11/10/2008 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, (Amend Para. 1(e)) by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/10/2008) Online 109 11/13/2008 ORDER granting 107 Unopposed Motion to Expedite EPA's Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. The Court will rule expeditiously on EPA's motion. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 11/12/2008. (mm) (Entered: 11/13/2008) Free 110 11/13/2008 ORDER granting 106 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. Paragraph 3 of the Order shall be amended as follows: 3. No later than August 15, 2009, EPA shall promulgate emission standards assuring that source categories accounting for not less than ninety percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the hazardous air pollutants enumerated in Section 112(c)(6) are subject to emission standards under Section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). This deadline shall be extended until July 15, 2010, if (a) no later than July 15, 2009, the Agency signs notices of proposed rulemaking proposing emission standards for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters and for CISWI units, and (b) no later than August 15, 2009, the Agency signs a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing emission standards for gold mining production processes. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 11/12/2008. (mm) (Entered: 11/13/2008) Free 111 11/13/2008 ORDER granting 108 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. Paragraph 1(e) of the Order is amended to require EPA to promulgate standards pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act ("CCA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(c)(3), (k)(3)(B), as follows: (e) EPA shall promulgate standards for one additional area source category by December 15, 2008, and for nine additional area source categories by May 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 11/12/2008. (mm) (Entered: 11/13/2008) Online 112 01/12/2009 MOTION to Intervene by STATE OF NEVADA (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Elges, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Notice of Appeal); # 4 Exhibit 1-7) (jeb, ). Modified on 1/14/2009 to add Exhibits 1-7 which were inadvertently not included when filed by court staff (jeb). (Entered: 01/13/2009) Free 113 01/15/2009 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the State of Nevada's Motion to Intervene by SIERRA CLUB (Pew, James) (Entered: 01/15/2009) Runner 01/16/2009 MINUTE ORDER granting 113 Sierra Club's unopposed motion for extension of time up to and including February 19, 2009 in which to respond to the State of Nevada's motion to intervene. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 16, 2009. (MA) (Entered: 01/16/2009) Runner 01/16/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to State of Nevada's motion to intervene due by 2/19/2009. (mm) (Entered: 01/16/2009) Free 114 01/22/2009 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 112 MOTION to Intervene by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 01/22/2009) Online 115 01/27/2009 ORDER granting 114 EPA's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Intervene by State of Nevada. The EPA shall file its response on 2/19/2009. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 1/23/2009. (mm) (Entered: 01/28/2009) Online 116 02/19/2009 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 112 MOTION to Intervene For Both Plaintiff and Defendant by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 02/19/2009) Online 117 02/19/2009 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF OFFICIAL DEFENDANT by STEPHEN L. JOHNSON (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 02/19/2009) Online 118 02/19/2009 Memorandum in opposition to re 112 MOTION to Intervene filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Pew, James) (Entered: 02/19/2009) Runner 02/20/2009 ORDER granting 116 Motion for extension of time for plaintiff and defendant to respond to motion to intervene by the state of Nevada. The parties shall now file their responses on or before February 24, 2009. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 02/20/09. (lcplf1). (Entered: 02/20/2009) Runner 02/20/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion to intervene by state of Nevada due by 2/24/2009. (mm) (Entered: 02/23/2009) Online 119 02/24/2009 Memorandum in opposition to re 112 MOTION to Intervene by State of Nevada filed by LISA P. JACKSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 02/24/2009) Online 120 02/27/2009 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Oppositions to its' Motion to Intervene by STATE OF NEVADA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Frey, William) (Entered: 02/27/2009) Runner 03/02/2009 ORDER granting 120 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The State of Nevada shall now file a reply in support of its motion to intervene on or before March 16, 2009. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 3/2/09. (lcplf1, ) (Entered: 03/02/2009) Runner 03/02/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: State of Nevada to file reply in support of its motion to interven by 3/16/2009. (mm) (Entered: 03/03/2009) Online 121 03/16/2009 REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION TO INTERVENE 112 filed by STATE OF NEVADA. (Frey, William) Modified on 3/17/2009 adding linkage (td, ). (Entered: 03/16/2009) Free 122 04/24/2009 ORDER denying 112 the State of Nevada's motion to intervene. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 24, 2009. (MA) (Entered: 04/24/2009) Online 123 05/07/2009 Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion to Amend Order by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 05/07/2009) Online 124 05/07/2009 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 05/07/2009) Runner 05/08/2009 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant's unopposed motions for expedited consideration 123 and to amend the Order of March 31, 2006 124 are hereby GRANTED. Paragraph (1)(e) of the March 31, 2006 Order is amended as follows: "EPA shall promulgate standards for one additional area source category by December 15, 2008." Paragraph 1(f) of the March 31, 2006 Order is amended as follows: "EPA shall promulgate standards for three additional area source categories by June 15, 2009, and shall promulgate standards for all remaining listed area source categories by August 17, 2009." Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 5/8/09. (lcplf1). (Entered: 05/08/2009) Free 125 06/26/2009 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/26/2009) Free 126 06/30/2009 ORDER granting 125 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 6/29/2009. (mm) (Entered: 06/30/2009) Runner 06/30/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to promulgate emission standards by 10/15/2009. (mm) (Entered: 06/30/2009) Page 8 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 11 Online 127 09/08/2009 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Order of March 31, 2006 (as amended) by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Purdy, Angeline) (Entered: 09/08/2009) Free 128 09/10/2009 ORDER granting 127 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006 As Amended on June 30, 2009. See Order for specifics. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 9/9/2009. (mm) (Entered: 09/10/2009) Runner 09/10/2009 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to promulgate standards for nine additional area source categories by 10/16/2009. (zmm, ) (Entered: 09/10/2009) Online 129 11/09/2009 STIPULATION re 45 Miscellaneous Document,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Modifying Consent Decree entered on May 22, 2003 by LISA P. JACKSON. (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 11/09/2009) Online 130 02/10/2010 NOTICE of Stipulation Modifying Consent Decree Deadline by LISA P. JACKSON (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 02/10/2010) Online 131 04/13/2010 Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 2006 by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 04/13/2010) Free 132 04/13/2010 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, to Extend Deadline of April 15, 2010 by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 04/13/2010) Runner 04/13/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 131 defendant's unopposed motion for expedited consideration of the unopposed motion to amend order of March 31, 2006. Defendant's unopposed motion to amend order of 3/31/06 shall be considered on an expedited basis. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 13, 2010. (MA) (Entered: 04/13/2010) Free 133 04/13/2010 ORDER: Upon consideration of the 132 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006, as amended on September 9, 2009, it is ordered that the motion is granted. See Order for specifics. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 4/13/2010. (zmm, ) (Entered: 04/13/2010) Runner 04/13/2010 Set/Reset Deadlines: EPA to promulgate emission standards as directed in 4/13/2010 Order by 5/14/2010. (zmm, ) (Entered: 04/13/2010) Free 134 08/31/2010 Unopposed MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/31/2010) Free 135 09/20/2010 ORDER granting 134 Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006. See Order for specifics. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 9/19/2010. (zmm, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010) Free 136 12/07/2010 MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order (Alternative))(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 12/07/2010) Online 137 12/07/2010 Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Consideration of EPA's Motion to Amend Order of March 2006 by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 12/07/2010) Online 138 12/07/2010 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Memorandum by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Corrected Memorandum)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 12/07/2010) Runner 12/09/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 137 defendant's unopposed motion for expedited consideration of its motion to amend order of 3/31/06; the EPA's motion to amend will be considered on an expedited basis; granting 138 defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a corrected memorandum of law; the corrected memorandum, which was submitted as an exhibit to defendant's motion, shall be deemed filed as of 12/7/10. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 9, 2010. (MA) (Entered: 12/09/2010) Online 139 12/21/2010 NOTICE of Subsequent Event by LISA P. JACKSON (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 12/21/2010) Free 140 12/24/2010 Memorandum in opposition to re 136 MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Text of Proposed Order) (Pew, James) (Entered: 12/24/2010) Online 141 12/27/2010 RESPONSE to 136 EPA Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006 filed by COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Hunt Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Griffin Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Feldman Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Dempsey Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Gardner-Andrews Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Sweeney Declaration)(Knight, Jeffrey) Modified on 12/28/2010 to correct docket text (jf, ). (Entered: 12/27/2010) Online 142 12/28/2010 AFFIDAVIT re 140 Memorandum in Opposition, Certificate of Service by SIERRA CLUB. (Pew, James) (Entered: 12/28/2010) Online 143 01/03/2011 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response by Intervenor by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Reply to Response)(Pew, James) (Entered: 01/03/2011) Online 144 01/03/2011 REPLY to opposition to motion re 136 MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, filed by LISA P. JACKSON. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Service)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 01/03/2011) Runner 01/04/2011 MINUTE ORDER granting 143 plaintiff's unopposed motion to submit reply to response by intervenor to EPA's motion to amend order of 3/31/06. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 4, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 01/04/2011) Online 145 01/04/2011 REPLY to re 141 response by intervenor to EPA's motion to amend order of March 31, 2006 filed by SIERRA CLUB. (td, ) Modified filed date on 1/5/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 01/05/2011) Online 146 01/10/2011 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to EPA's Motion to Amend Order of March 31, 2006 by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Surreply in Opposition)(Pew, James) (Entered: 01/10/2011) Runner 01/11/2011 MINUTE ORDER granting 146 plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Leave to File surreply in opposition to EPA's motion to amend order of 3/31/06. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 11, 2010. (MA) (Entered: 01/11/2011) Online 148 01/11/2011 SURREPLY in opposition to EPA's re 136 MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, MOTION to Amend/Correct 80 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, filed by SIERRA CLUB. (td, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011) Free 147 01/12/2011 ORDER that the January 16, 2011 deadlines in paragraphs 1(i) and 3 of the court's March 31, 2006 order is extended to January 21, 2011 or until further court order. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 12, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 01/12/2011) Free 149 01/20/2011 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 136 defendant's Motion to Amend the Court's March 31, 2006 orer. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 20, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 01/20/2011) Free 150 01/20/2011 OPINION granting in part and denying in part defendant EPA's motion to amend the Court's March 31, 2006. An order consistent with this opinion shall issue this same day. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 20, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 01/20/2011) Online 151 01/26/2011 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs and Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pew, James) (Entered: 01/26/2011) Runner 01/28/2011 MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Motion for Extension of Time up to and including April 20, 2011 in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 28, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 01/28/2011) Runner 01/28/2011 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for costs and attorneys' fees due by 4/20/2011. (zmm, ) (Entered: 01/31/2011) Online 152 04/08/2011 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs and Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pew, James) (Entered: 04/08/2011) Runner 04/11/2011 MINUTE ORDER granting 152 Sierra Club's second Motion for Extension of Time up to and including July 19, 2011 in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 11, 2011. (MA) (Entered: 04/11/2011) Runner 04/11/2011 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees due by 7/19/2011. (zmm, ) (Entered: 04/12/2011) Online 153 06/22/2011 NOTICE Regarding Costs of Litigation by SIERRA CLUB (Pew, James) (Entered: 06/22/2011) Free 154 08/03/2011 MOTION to Enforce Order of January 20, 2011 by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Pew, James) (Entered: 08/03/2011) Free 155 08/22/2011 Memorandum in opposition to re 154 MOTION to Enforce Order of January 20, 2011 filed by LISA P. JACKSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachments to Memorandum, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/22/2011) Page 9 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 11 Free 156 09/01/2011 MEMORANDUM re 154 MOTION to Enforce Order of January 20, 2011 filed by SIERRA CLUB by SIERRA CLUB. (Pew, James) (Entered: 09/01/2011) Free 157 01/09/2012 ORDER denying as moot 154 Sierra Club's motion to enforce the Court's order of January 20, 2011. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 9, 2012.(MA) (Entered: 01/09/2012) Free 158 07/05/2013 MOTION to Enforce by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13)(Pew, James) (Entered: 07/05/2013) Online 159 07/10/2013 NOTICE of Substitution of Defendant by LISA P. JACKSON (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 07/10/2013) Online 160 07/10/2013 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 158 MOTION to Enforce by LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 07/10/2013) Runner 07/11/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 160 defendant's unopposed motion to extend briefing schedule. EPA shall file its opposition to Sierra Club's motion to enforce the Court's Orders on or before August 27, 2013. Sierra Club shall file any reply in support of its motion no later than September 18, 2013. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 11, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 07/11/2013) Runner 07/12/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion to enforce Court's Orders due by 8/27/2013. Replydue by 9/18/2013. (zmm, ) (Entered: 07/12/2013) Online 161 07/15/2013 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 158 MOTION to Enforce by COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Knight, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2013) Runner 07/16/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 161 intervenors unopposed motion to extend deadline to respond to plaintiff Sierra Clubs motion to enforce. Intervenors response shall be due August 27, 2013. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 16, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 07/16/2013) Runner 07/16/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Intervenors' response due by 8/27/2013. (zmm, ) (Entered: 07/16/2013) Online 162 08/11/2013 NOTICE of substitution of defendant by ROBERT PERCIASEPE (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/11/2013) Online 163 08/21/2013 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 158 MOTION to Enforce (Second) by GINA MCCARTHY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 08/21/2013) Online 164 08/22/2013 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response by COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Knight, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2013) Runner 08/23/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 163 EPA's second unopposed motion to extend the briefing schedule filed by defendant. EPA shall file its opposition to Sierra Club's motion to enforce the court's orders on or before September 13, 2013; Sierra Club shall file any reply in support of its motion on or before November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 23, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 08/23/2013) Runner 08/23/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 164 intervenors' unopposed motion to extend filing deadline. Intervenors shall file their opposition to Sierra Club's motion to enforce the court's orders on or before September 13, 2013. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 23, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 08/23/2013) Runner 08/23/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion to enforce court's orders due by 9/13/2013. Reply due by 11/1/2013. (zmm, ) (Entered: 08/23/2013) Free 165 09/13/2013 Memorandum in opposition to re 158 MOTION to Enforce filed by COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION. (Knight, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/13/2013) Free 166 09/13/2013 Memorandum in opposition to re 158 MOTION to Enforce filed by GINA MCCARTHY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 09/13/2013) Online 167 11/01/2013 REPLY to opposition to motion re 158 MOTION to Enforce filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Respondent Brief 699 F.3d 524, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Respondent Brief 699 F.3d 550)(Pew, James) (Entered: 11/01/2013) Free 168 07/25/2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 158 Sierra Club's motion to enforce. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before August 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 25, 2014.(MA) (Entered: 07/25/2014) Runner 07/29/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/15/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2014) Online 169 08/07/2014 MOTION for Extension of Time to Request Costs and Attorneys' Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 08/07/2014) Runner 08/07/2014 MINUTE ORDER granting 169 Sierra Club's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a request for costs and attorneys' fees. Sierra Club shall file any such request on or before November 6, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 7, 2014. (lcplf2) (Entered: 08/07/2014) Runner 08/08/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for costs and attorneys' fees by Sierra Club due by 11/6/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014) Online 170 08/12/2014 STATUS REPORT by GINA MCCARTHY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) Modified on 8/13/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014) Free 171 08/13/2014 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by GINA MCCARTHY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen)(Entered: 08/13/2014) Runner 08/13/2014 MINUTE ORDER granting 171 the parties' joint motion for extension of time up to and including September 3, 2014 to file a second status report regarding an agreed-upon schedule. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 13, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 08/13/2014) Runner 08/15/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/3/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014) Online 172 09/02/2014 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by GINA MCCARTHY. (McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 09/02/2014) Online 173 10/27/2014 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Request for Costs and Attorney Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 10/27/2014) Runner 10/29/2014 MINUTE ORDER granting 173 Sierra Club's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to request costs and attorneys' fees. Sierra Club shall make any such request on or before December 22, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on October 29, 2014. (lcplf2) (Entered: 10/29/2014) Runner 10/30/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for attorneys' fees and costs due by 12/22/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 10/30/2014) Online 174 12/18/2014 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Request for Costs and Attorney Fees by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 12/18/2014) Runner 12/19/2014 MINUTE ORDER granting 174 Sierra Club's motion for extension of time up to and including February 5, 2015 in which to request attorney's fees and costs. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 19, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 12/19/2014) Online 175 01/30/2015 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to To Move For an Award of Costs of Litigation by GINA MCCARTHY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 01/30/2015) Runner 01/30/2015 MINUTE ORDER granting 175 the parties' joint motion for an extension of time within which Sierra Club may file a motion for an award of fees and costs. Sierra Club shall file any motion for an award of fees and costs on or before June 19, 2015. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on January 30, 2015. (lcplf2) (Entered: 01/30/2015) Runner 02/02/2015 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for award of fees and costs due by 6/19/2015. (zmm, ) (Entered: 02/02/2015) Free 176 06/05/2015 MOTION (for closure of these consolidated cases) (See order 180 )By EPA of Completition of Required Action and Resolution of Claim for Costs of Litigation by GINA MCCARTHY (McDonough, Eileen) Modified on 7/15/2015 (td). (Entered: 06/05/2015) Free 177 06/09/2015 RESPONSE re 176 Notice (Other) filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Final Respondent Brief)(Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 06/09/2015) Free 178 06/19/2015 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Sierra Club's Response by GINA MCCARTHY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Opposition to be Filed and Proposed Order)(McDonough, Eileen) (Entered: 06/19/2015) Free 179 07/02/2015 RESPONSE re 178 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Sierra Club's Response filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 07/02/2015) ORDER granting 178 EPA's motion for leave to file an opposition to Sierra Club's response; EPA's opposition [178-2] shall be filed on the docket; the Court will treat EPA's Notice 176 as a motion requesting closure of these consolidated cases; it will treat Sierra Club's response 177 as an opposition to that motion; and it will Page 10 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 11 Online 180 07/14/2015 treat EPA's opposition [178-2] as a reply in support of EPA's motion for closure of the cases. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 14, 2015. (MA) (Entered: 07/14/2015) Online 181 07/14/2015 REPLY in support (pursuant to order 180 ) re 176 Notice (Other) filed by GINA MCCARTHY. (td) (Entered: 07/15/2015) Online 182 07/17/2015 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by SIERRA CLUB (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Lodged Sur-Reply, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Lodged Sur-Reply, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Lodged Sur-Reply, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Lodged Sur-Reply)(Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 07/17/2015) Online 183 07/29/2015 ORDER granting 182 Sierra Club's motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to EPA's motion for closure of the cases. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 29, 2015. (MA) (Entered: 07/29/2015) Online 184 07/29/2015 SURREPLY to re 176 MOTION for Order filed by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(znmw) (Entered: 07/30/2015) Free 185 08/14/2015 NOTICE of Filing of Petition for Review by SIERRA CLUB (Gormley, Neil) (Entered: 08/14/2015) Free 186 02/19/2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 176 EPA's motion to close these consolidated cases. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on February 19, 2016. (MA) (Entered: 02/19/2016) Items 1 to 275 of 275 Retrieve Document(s) Send to TimeMap New Docket Search Search in Same Court About LexisNexis Terms & Conditions Pricing Privacy Customer Support - 1-888-311-1966 Copyright © 2017 LexisNexis®. All rights reserved. | | | | | | Page 11 of 11LexisNexis CourtLink - Docket Number Search Result 6/15/2017mhtml:file://C:\Users\EMCDONOU\Desktop\Ex c.mht Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-4 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMUNITY IN-POWER AND ) DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ ) v. ) ) SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, United ) States Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER Upon consideration of the cross-motion for summary judgment on remedy filed by Defendant Scott Pruitt, in his 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 nine source categories identified therein. ________________________________ HON. KETANJI BROWN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: ____________________ Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-5 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 2 Proposal and Final Rule Dates for the 9 RTR Source Categories Source Category Proposal Date Final Rule Date Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants July 23, 2021 July 22, 2022 Semiconductor Manufacturing Nov. 11, 2021 Nov. 10, 2022 Generic MACT II – Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Dec. 9, 2021 Dec. 8, 2022 Generic MACT II – Spandex Production Dec. 9, 2021 Dec. 8, 2022 Generic MACT II – Carbon Black Production Feb. 24, 2022 Feb. 23, 2023 Primary Copper Smelting April 21, 2022 July 13, 2023 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Jan. 19, 2023 April 11, 2024 Refractory Products Manufacturing Feb. 23, 2023 May 16, 2024 Primary Magnesium Refining April 20, 2023 July 18, 2024 Case 1:16-cv-01074-KBJ Document 23-5 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 2
