of submission of the revised or new standard;” if, instead, the Administrator finds the standard inconsistent with the Act, “he shall not later than the ninetieth day after the date of submission of such standard notify the State and specify the changes to meet such requirements.”). All agree that EPA did not conduct this review process for the 2009 Document. The Cities allege that the 2009 Document was a revised water quality standard, and that EPA’s failure to review and either adopt or reject it violated EPA’s non-discretionary duty. EPA responds that the Document, was not a water quality standard at all, and so plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because EPA was not under any nondiscretionary duty to review it. See Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848, 853-54 (D.C.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). The key issue, then, is whether the 2009
holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding under a nearly identical provision of the clean air act that a nondiscretionaiy duty supporting a citizen suit must be nondiscretionary ie clearcut holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa holding for a citizen suit brought under a substantially identical provision of the clean air act that whether plaintiffs have established a nondiscretionary duty to act by the epa is a merits question under rule 12b6 rather than a subjectmatter jurisdiction question under rule 12b1