Clean Air Act

This action is brought under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q, to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take the statutorily required action of making findings under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(1)(B), and publishing notice of those findings in the Federal Register, that the State of California has failed to develop and submit at least four separate nonattainment state implementation plan revisions to combat persistent violations of the 1997, 2006, and 2012 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley, California.

On May 30, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule entitled “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” 83 Fed. Reg. 24,850 (May 30, 2018) (the “Rollback Rule”). The Rollback Rule would rescind or weaken almost all of the chemical disaster prevention and mitigation measures previously adopted by the agency in its January 2017 final rule, “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act,” 82 Fed. Reg. 4594 (Jan. 13, 2017) (the “Chemical Disaster Rule”). Comments on the Rollback Rule were originally due July 30, 2018, but EPA extended this deadline to August 23, 2018, pursuant to a Notice of Data Availability. See “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Notification of Data Availability and Extension of Comment Period,” 83 Fed. Reg. 34,967 (July 24, 2018). The undersigned groups submit the following comments to oppose EPA’s proposed Rollback Rule. For reasons discussed herein and provided in the D.C. Circuit’s decision vacating EPA’s 2017 Delay Rule, EPA should withdraw, and not finalize, the proposed Rollback Rule. See Air Alliance Houston et al. v. EPA, No. 17-1155, Slip Op. (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2018).

Because EPA has not engaged in reasoned decisionmaking, its promulgation of the Delay Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court grants the petitions for review and vacates the Delay Rule.

Letter to Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urging him to withdraw EPA’s proposed rule, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science”.