JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. “Phil and Don,” once again, are “knocking at the door.”¹ See Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020). The Everly Brothers are a famous musical duo known for many hits. Cathy’s Clown is the one at issue in this appeal. Older brother Isaac Donald Everly (“Don”) and younger brother Philip Everly (“Phil”) are now both deceased, but their estates² contest authorship over Cathy’s Clown. Don’s estate claims full authorship, while Phil’s estate claims co-authorship.

While both brothers may have co-authored the lyrics and tune as a matter of fact, Don’s estate alleges that Phil is no longer an author as a matter of copyright law. That is because Don allegedly expressly repudiated Phil’s authorship, triggering a three-year window for Phil to re-assert authorship under the Copyright Act. On November 8, 2017, Don sued Phil’s estate for a declaratory judgment that Don is sole author of Cathy’s Clown and should receive the benefits therefrom. The district court granted Don summary judgment, and we reversed because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Don repudiated Phil’s authorship. After a bench trial, the district court found that Don did repudiate Phil’s authorship and Phil failed to re-assert that he was an author. The district court further determined that because Phil failed to re-assert that he was an author, he was time-barred from asserting he was a co-author as a defense to Don’s suit. Phil’s estate contests this finding and, in addition, asserts that the three-year statute of limitations applies only to authorship claims, not defenses, and so it should be allowed to argue that Phil was an author to defend against Don’s suit. We hold that Don’s estate may rely on the statute of limitations here. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that Phil failed to exercise his rights after Don repudiated his authorship, we AFFIRM.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the provisions of the Clean Air Act that give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pollutants. To achieve, maintain, and enforce those standards, every state is required to develop a plan known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which the EPA reviews and, after public notice and comment, either approves or disapproves. Upon approval, a SIP—and all the state regulations it includes—becomes enforceable in federal court. If the EPA determines that its prior approval of a SIP was in error, the EPA can revise the plan using the Clean Air Act’s error-correction provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(6).

For almost fifty years, Ohio’s SIP included an air nuisance rule (ANR) that made unlawful the emission of various substances in a manner or amount that endangered public health, safety, or welfare, or caused unreasonable injury or damage to property. In March of 2020, the EPA proposed removing the ANR from Ohio’s SIP using the Clean Air Act’s error-correction provision. After receiving public comment, the EPA ultimately finalized the removal of the ANR from Ohio’s SIP on the grounds that the state had not relied on the rule to implement, maintain, or enforce any NAAQS. The Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council, Donna Ballinger, and Marilyn Wall (collectively, Petitioners) timely petitioned for review of the removal of the air nuisance rule, arguing that the EPA improperly invoked 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(6) and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in removing the ANR from Ohio’s SIP. We grant the petition, holding that Petitioners have standing to challenge the EPA’s removal of the ANR from Ohio’s SIP, and remand the removal without vacatur so that the Agency may review its action further.