American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA, No. 09-1090.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit , and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit
Citation600 F.3d 624
PartiesAMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., and The Truckload Carriers Association, Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Respondents California Air Resources Board, Natural Resources Defense Council, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Intervenors.
Docket NumberNo. 09-1090.
Decision Date02 April 2010

600 F.3d 624

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., and The Truckload Carriers Association, Petitioners
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Respondents
California Air Resources Board, Natural Resources Defense Council, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Intervenors.

No. 09-1090.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 2, 2009.

Decided April 2, 2010.


600 F.3d 625

Anthony L. Michaels argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert Digges, Chief Counsel, ATA Litigation Center, and Thomas Richichi.

David J. Kaplan, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Horowitz, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel.

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, Matt Rodriquez, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Deputy Attorney General, and Gavin G. McCabe, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for Intervenor California Air Resources Board.

Colin O'Brien, Aaron Colangelo, David Pettit, Melissa Lin Perrella, and Bart Lounsbury were on the brief for Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.

Kurt R. Weise and Barbara B. Baird were on the brief for amicus curiae South Coast Air Quality Management District in support of respondents.

Before: BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.

Opinion dissenting in part filed by Senior Circuit Judge WILLIAMS.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge:

The Clean Air Act assigns California— not any of the other states and not the federal Environmental Protection Agency—the primary role in setting limits on emissions from in-use non-road engines. An example of a "non-road" engine is a truck's transportation refrigeration unit, which keeps perishable goods at the proper temperature. Under the Act, each of the other 49 states may adopt a rule identical to California's. Otherwise, however, the other states are prohibited from adopting any regulation of emissions from in-use non-road engines. EPA's only role is to review California's proposed rules under a narrowly defined set of statutory criteria.

In 2004, California enacted a rule that regulates the emissions from transportation refrigeration units in trucks. EPA authorized California's rule after reviewing it under the relevant statutory criteria. The American Trucking Associations (plural, not a typo) has challenged EPA's decision, arguing that EPA misinterpreted and unreasonably applied the statutory criteria when approving the California rule. We disagree, and we therefore deny the petition for review.

I

A

Under the Clean Air Act, both the Federal Government and the States exercise responsibility for maintaining and improving air quality.

When it comes to regulating emissions from stationary pollution sources like waste incinerators and power plants, EPA

600 F.3d 626
sets national ambient air quality standards, and the individual states develop and implement plans to achieve those standards. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409-7410

As to regulating emissions from mobile pollution sources like automobile engines, EPA and the States also share responsibility depending on the kind of engine at issue. From a regulatory perspective, and oversimplifying a bit for present purposes, mobile engines fall into one of four categories: (i) new on-road, (ii) new non-road, (iii) in-use on-road, and (iv) in-use non-road.

This case concerns the fourth category—in-use non-road engines. Congress has given California the primary role in regulating emissions from those engines. Id. § 7543(e)(2)(A). Each of the other 49 states has the choice either (i) to follow California's lead and adopt a rule identical to California's or (ii) to adopt no regulation at all with respect to emissions from in-use non-road engines. Id. § 7543(e)(2); see Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075,1087-94 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Under this statutory scheme, EPA applies three criteria in reviewing California's proposed in-use non-road engine rules. EPA must approve a proposed California regulation unless: (1) EPA finds that California unreasonably determined that its rule is at least as protective of public health and welfare as the relevant federal standards; (2) EPA concludes that California does not need the proposed standard "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions" in California; or (3) EPA finds that California's standards "are not consistent with" § 7543. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(e)(2)(A)(i)-(iii). That third criterion—the consistency criterion—requires EPA to assess whether the California rule prevents other states from deciding to "adopt and enforce" the California rule. Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Standards, 59 Fed.Reg. 36,969, 36,983 (July 20, 1994). The third criterion also dictates that EPA consider "the cost of compliance" with the regulation. Id.

B

In 2004, acting under that statutory scheme, the California Air Resources Board devised a plan to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated cancer risks in California by 75% by 2010 and 85% by 2020. The Board promulgated emissions standards for certain in-use non-road engines—in particular, for transportation refrigeration units (or TRUs) powered by diesel engines. TRUs are used to control the temperature of trailers carrying perishable goods. For any TRU operating in California that was manufactured before December 31, 2001, California's rule required compliance by December 31, 2008. Thereafter, the rule's requirements are phased in by model year.

The California rule requires all TRUs carried on vehicles operating in California—not just those carried on vehicles based in California—to comply with California emissions standards. CAL.CODE REGS. tit. 13, § 2477(b). The rule means, in other words, that TRUs carried on vehicles based primarily in another state must comply with the California rule if and when those vehicles operate in California.

The rule affords TRU owners several compliance options: (1) replace the old TRU with a compliant engine; (2) show that the in-use TRU meets the necessary standards; (3) retrofit the TRU with a device that will reduce diesel particulate matter emissions to a compliant level; or (4) choose an alternative technological option for transporting perishable goods. Id. § 2477(e)(1)(A).

600 F.3d 627

In 2005, as required by the federal statute, California requested EPA's authorization of the TRU rule. EPA approved the rule and explained its reasoning in a lengthy decision. In applying the first statutory criterion, EPA concluded that California reasonably determined that the TRU rule would be at least as protective of public health and welfare as federal regulations. As to the second criterion, EPA found that California had reasonably shown it needed the rule to address "compelling and extraordinary conditions" in the state—namely California's well-known air pollution problems. As to the third criterion, EPA addressed whether the TRU rule conflicted with the statute's "adopt and enforce" provision that gives other states the choice of either following California's lead or declining to regulate emissions from in-use non-road engines at all. EPA concluded that the TRU rule satisfied that criterion because it applied only to TRUs operating in California. Also under the third criterion, EPA found that the cost of complying with the TRU rule was not unreasonable.

The American Trucking Associations is a national trade association representing the U.S. trucking industry. It challenges EPA's authorization of the California TRU rule. Our narrow task is to determine whether EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). That standard is deferential. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1810, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).

II

Under the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act, EPA was required to approve California's proposed TRU rule unless EPA concluded that (i) California unreasonably determined that its rule is at least as protective of public health and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Nos. 11–1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 24, 2013
    ...(D.C.Cir.2011); Medical Waste Institute & Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 (D.C.Cir.2011); American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624 (D.C.Cir.2010). In this case, however, we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries. Congress could well decide to alter the sta......
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 21, 2012
    ...Cir. 2011); Medical Waste Institute & Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2011); American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In this case, however, we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries. Congress could well decide to alter the sta......
  • Sierra Club v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 10-1513 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 11, 2016
    ...the APA. As a result, the Court remands the case to the Keeper for “the exercise of reasoned decisionmaking.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624, 631 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citation omitted). The Keeper “is directed to address any issues raised [in this opinion], and any other arguments that......
  • Alliance for Cal. Bus. v. State Air Res. Bd., C082828
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 2018
    ...cases ( Motor and Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. E. P. A. (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095 ; Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) 600 F.3d 624 ) do not arise within the context of SIP approvals either. Section 209 of the Act "requires the [Administrator] to waive federal preemption of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Nos. 11–1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 24, 2013
    ...(D.C.Cir.2011); Medical Waste Institute & Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 (D.C.Cir.2011); American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624 (D.C.Cir.2010). In this case, however, we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries. Congress could well decide to alter the sta......
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 21, 2012
    ...Cir. 2011); Medical Waste Institute & Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2011); American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In this case, however, we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries. Congress could well decide to alter the sta......
  • Sierra Club v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 10-1513 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 11, 2016
    ...the APA. As a result, the Court remands the case to the Keeper for “the exercise of reasoned decisionmaking.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624, 631 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citation omitted). The Keeper “is directed to address any issues raised [in this opinion], and any other arguments that......
  • Alliance for Cal. Bus. v. State Air Res. Bd., C082828
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 2018
    ...cases ( Motor and Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. E. P. A. (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095 ; Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) 600 F.3d 624 ) do not arise within the context of SIP approvals either. Section 209 of the Act "requires the [Administrator] to waive federal preemption of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT