Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass'n v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 19 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:11-cv-00384-MCE-GGH,2:11-cv-00384-MCE-GGH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CALIFORNIA DUMP TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. MARY D. NICHOLS; Chairperson of the California Air Resources Board; JAMES GOLDESTENE, Executive Office of the California Air Resources Board, Defendants. |
This case arises out of a challenge by Plaintiff California Dump Truck Owners Association ("CDTOA" or "Plaintiff") to the enforcement by Defendants Mary D. Nichols, Chairperson of the California Air Resources Board, and James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, (collectively "ARB") of California's "Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles," Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 2025 ("the Truck and Bus Regulation" or "Regulation"), on the basis that the Regulation is preempted by federal law.Currently pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed by CDTOA, ARB, and Defendant-Intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") regarding Plaintiff's claim that California's Regulation is preempted by federal law. (ECF Nos. 34, 43-9, and 45.)
After the Court took the Motions under submission, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued a decision approving California's State Implementation Plan ("SIP"), which incorporates the Truck and Bus Regulation. See Final Rule, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 77 Fed. Reg. 20308-01 (Apr. 4, 2012) (codified as 40 C.F.R. pt. 52). This Court then ordered supplemental briefing first as to the impact of the EPA decision on the merits of this case and, second, as to whether the EPA is a necessary and indispensable party. (See ECF Nos. 61 and 68.) On September 6, 2012, after the parties had submitted their supplemental briefs, the Court held an oral hearing on the matter. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that, for the reasons set forth below, it cannot retain jurisdiction over this action in light of EPA's approval of the Truck and Dump Regulation as part of California's SIP. Alternatively, even if the Court were to retain jurisdiction, this action should be dismissed because EPA is a necessary and indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
BACKGROUND
CDTOA initiated this action on February 11, 2011, and filed its operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 6, 2011. (ECF Nos. 1 and 12.) CDTOA requests the Court "issue a declaration that the Truck and Bus Regulation is preempted by federal law" and "issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting ARB from enforcing" the Regulation. (ECF No. 12, at 6.)By Memorandum and Order dated May 20, 2011, this Court granted NRDC leave to intervene as Defendant. (ECF No. 18.) Just over one month later, on July 5, 2012, CDTOA filed a motion for summary judgment.1 (ECF No. 22.) On December 22, 2012, ARB and NRDC filed their respective Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 43-9 and 45.)
Since the effective date of the Regulation was January 1, 2012, which is prior to the time the dispositive motions could be resolved, CDTOA filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to temporarily enjoin enforcement of the Regulation until such time as the dispositive motions could be heard and decided. (ECF No. 31, at 1.) The Court denied Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief via a written Memorandum and Order dated January 27, 2012. (ECF No. 54.)
On May 24, 2012, NRDC filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority advising the Court that the EPA had issued an "Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California Air Resources Board - In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus Regulation, and Drayage Truck Regulation," 77 Fed. Reg. 20308-01 (Apr. 4, 2012), by which the EPA took final action to approve revisions to California's SIP.2 (ECF No. 59.) Pursuant to that EPA decision, "[f]inal approval of the two regulations and incorporation of them into the California SIP [made] them federally enforceable." 77 Fed. Reg. 20308. Given the EPA's indication that the Truck and Bus Regulation is now federally enforceable, this Court issued an Order on May 30, 2012, requiring supplemental briefing as to the impact of the EPA decision on the parties' positions in this case. (ECF No. 61.)Once the parties provided the additional briefing, the Court set this matter for hearing and once again ordered further briefing, this time on the question of whether the EPA is a necessary, and perhaps indispensable, party to this litigation. (ECF No. 68.) On September 6, 2012, the Court held an oral hearing on this matter.
The Truck and Bus Regulation was adopted by the California Legislature in 2008, and then amended in 2011, with the goal of reducing amounts of diesel particulate matter ("PM") and oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emissions from diesel-fueled trucks and buses operating within the state.3 (Declaration of Melissa Lin Perrella in Support of NRDC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("Perrella Decl."), ECF No. 45-2, Ex. E.) The Regulation was adopted as part of California's plan to satisfy national air quality standards set by the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
Over eighty-percent of California's nearly one million heavy-duty trucks are fueled by diesel, and those diesel-fueled vehicles are the largest source of PM and NOx emissions in California. (Declaration of Todd Sax in Support of ARB's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Sax Decl."), ECF No. 38-6, ¶ 13.). According to ARB, those emissions contribute to ambient levels of PM composed of particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter, which causes a variety of health problems, up to and including death. (Id.; Declaration of Linda Smith in Support of ARB's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Smith Decl."), ECF No. 38-2, ¶ 9.) NOx is also a "precursor to ozone," exposure to which carries its own health risks. (Declaration of Tony Brazil in Support of ARB's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Brazil Decl."), ECF No. 38-7, ¶ 11.)
The Regulation combats PM and NOx emissions in two ways. First, covered vehicles are required to have diesel particulate filters installed to reduce PM emissions. (Brazil Decl. ¶ 22.) Accordingly, by the applicable regulatory deadlines, older trucks will need to either be retrofitted with filters or have their engines replaced with model year 2007 or newer engines, engines that are already equipped with updated filtering technology. (Id.) In addition, all engines will have to be upgraded to model year 2010 engines (or engines with equal or lower emissions) by separate regulatory deadlines. (Id.) The NRDC provided a chart helpful in illustrating the compliance schedule:
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦Engine Model Year Schedule ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Engine Year¦Requirement from January 1, 2012 ¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦Pre-1994 ¦No requirements until 2015, then 2010 engine ¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦1994-95 ¦No requirements until 2016, then 2010 engine ¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦1996-99 ¦PM filter from 2012 to 2020, then 2010 engine¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦2000-04 ¦PM filter from 2013-2021, then 2010 engine ¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦2005-06 ¦PM filter from 2014 to 2022, then 2010 engine¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦2007-09 ¦No requirements until 2023, then 2010 engine ¦
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦2010 ¦Meets final requirement ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+
(NRDC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 45-1, at 4.)
Accordingly, most heavy-duty trucks must have filters installed by 2014. (Brazil Decl. ¶ 23.) Similarly, all heavy-duty truck engines must be replaced with model year 2010 engines by 2023. (Id. ¶ 24.) However, trucks with 1996 to 1999 model year engines and 2000 to 2004 model year engines must install the requisite filters by January 1, 2012, and January 1, 2013, respectively. (Id. ¶ 25) Compliance with the Regulation even as to these trucks can nonetheless be delayed under certain provisions of the Rule. (Id. ¶¶ 26-32.)It is estimated that the Regulation will cost $1.5 billion over the first five years of its implementation and $2.2 billion over the Regulation's life. (Brazil Decl. ¶ 18.)
CDTOA is a trade association representing nearly 1,000 trucking companies "whose business constitutes over seventy five percent (75%) of the hauling of dirt, rock, sand, and gravel operations in California." (Pl.'s Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Mot."), ECF No. 34, at 1.) CDTOA contends that "[v]irtually all of the trucks owned and operated by CDTOA members are subject to the [Regulation]," and that the Regulation imposes steep fines and penalties on anyone who operates their trucks in violation of the [R]egulation." (Declaration of Lee Brown in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Brown Decl."), ECF No. 34-3, ¶¶ 4-5.) According to the CDTOA, however, retrofitting the covered trucks is prohibitively expensive for many of its members and makes the vehicles less efficient, more prone to breakdowns, and harder to resell. (Brown Decl. ¶ 8; Declaration of Fred Recupido in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Recupido Decl."), ECF No. 34-2, ¶¶ 5-7; Declaration of Jay Pocock in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pocock Decl."), ECF No. 34-4, ¶¶ 5-6.). CDTOA thus contends that, if the Regulation is enforced,...
To continue reading
Request your trial