EPA must not be allowed to continue to thwart Congress’s statutory mandates to assure that Clean Air Act emission standards for major air toxics sources reflect up-to-date pollution control methods and “provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health” and the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6), (f)(2)(A). Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23 Filed 11/17/15 Page 40 of 41 26 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their motion for summary judgment, find EPA liable for failing to take the non-discretionary actions described above, and order EPA to perform each required action and duty by the expeditious deadlines set forth in the accompanying proposed order.

See State Farm, 463 13 Even absent a stay, existing sources will not need to comply with the Industrial Boilers Rule before March 21, 2014 at the earliest, and may be given an additional year to March 21, 2015 if necessary. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(i)(3)(A)-(B). Similarly, existing sources will not need to comply with the CISWI Rule before March 21, 2015, and may not need to comply until March 21, 2016.

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,

22,602 (Apr. 26, 2004) (40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart IIII). Consequently, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), Defendant is hereby Case 1:15-cv-00512-TSC Document 23-1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 46 364 CR 19 8 il 09 26 6 4 5 4 ORDERED to perform all acts or duties required by 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) and § 7412(f)(2) for the above-listed major source categories of hazardous air pollutants according to the following schedule:  Sign proposed actions for ten (10) of the above-listed major source categories no later than eight (8) months after the date of this Order, and sign final actions fulfilling all relevant statutory requirements to complete those rulemakings no later than one (1) year after the date of this Order; and  Sign proposed actions for the remaining ten (10) above-listed major source categories no later than twenty (20) months after the date of this Order, and sign final actions fulfilling all relevant statutory requirements to complete those rulemakings no later than two (2) years after the date of this Order. Following signature of the above actions, EPA shall transmit the signed actions to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication.

Case 1:11-cv-01278-PLF Document 25 Filed 09/01/11 Page 14 of 20 15 As set forth above, the Clean Air Act does not leave EPA any authority to delay the effectiveness of section 112 and 129 rules beyond the framework established in the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(d)(10) & 7429(f). But even if EPA retained some such extra-statutory authority, Congress specifically limited stays pending reconsideration to a duration “not to exceed three months.”

Accordingly, ExxonMobil respectfully requests that the Court strike page 9, lines 9-12; page 11, lines 19-28; and page 12, lines 1-15 of the Certification Motion (Dkt. 85), as well as paragraph 3 of the Matern Declaration (Dkt. 85-1), and Exhibit A thereto (Dkt. 85-2). Dated: February 11, 2019 M. RANDALL OPPENHEIMER DAWN SESTITO O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: /s/ Dawn Sestito Dawn Sestito Attorneys for Defendant EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1 While Terry is not binding precedent, given the limited case law addressing Section 7412(r)(6)(G), it is nevertheless a persuasive illustration of the statute’s broad application. Case 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK Document 165 Filed 02/11/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:9023

Pursuant to federal statute, however, none of these findings may be “admitted as evidence” or “used” in this civil action for damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(6)(G). Congress has explicitly articulated the intent behind the statute’s prohibition on the use of such information in civil proceedings, explaining that “[i]n conducting its investigations, [CSB] will need the fullest cooperation from facility owners . . . involved in an accidental release to determine the probable cause of the event,” and that “[t]he likelihood that conclusions drawn from information provided to [CSB] will be used in a suit from [sic] damages will discourage full cooperation.”

There are currently 189 toxic air contaminants (hereinafter referred to as “TACs”) regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) andthe states pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7412. Common TACsinclude benzene, perchloroethylene and asbestos.

Id. In Michigan v. EPA, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2699 (2015), the Court addressed Case 4:16-cv-00052-BMM Document 68 Filed 12/21/16 Page 28 of 53 -21- a regulation specific to the emissions of hazardous air pollutants by the power plant industry, not standards-setting for protecting the quality of the environment or human health, ultimately disagreeing that EPA was prohibited from considering cost when it was determining whether regulation of a particular industry under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) was necessary and appropriate. Michigan, 135 S.Ct., at 2709.

The Clean Air Act also sets out a regulatory structure for over 100 so-called “hazardousair pollutants” calling for EPA to establish “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT)for sources of these pollutants. (42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2); CAA § 112(d)(2).) California refers to these pollutants as “toxic air contaminants” (TACs) whichare subject to two state-required programs.