ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20104
No(s). 11-cv-5651-YGR, -5694-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2012) (Gonzales Rogers, J.)

A district court held that EPA does not have a mandatory duty to review and, if necessary, promulgate new PSD rules for ozone simply because the NAAQS for ozone has been revised. The history of the CAA and its numerous amendments unambiguously demonstrates that Congress differentiated duties stemming from a "promulgation" versus a "revision." When read as a whole, the court can only conclude that Congress intended CAA §166(a) to require an initial mandatory promulgation of regulations to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality for the four pollutants identified in the statute, and thereafter a single, initial mandatory promulgation for other pollutants subsequently identified. Because Congress did not specify that §166(a) applied to revisions of NAAQS, as it did in numerous other provisions in the CAA, the court cannot read such an obligation into §166(a). Accordingly, EPA has no mandatory duty at issue, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.