American Coatings Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
54 Cal. 4th 446
Cal.2012Background
- California Supreme Court reviews whether BARCT can rely on future technology to meet 2002 Rule 1113 emissions limits for architectural coatings.
- District amended Rule 1113 to set interim and final VOC limits with a seven-year compliance window (1999 amendments, final 2006 limits).
- Association challenged the rule as beyond District authority, arguing BARCT requires technology available at promulgation and limits must be achievable for all category applications.
- Record showed industry progress and studies suggesting low-/zero-VOC coatings were becoming available; District conducted tests and cost analyses forecasting future feasibility.
- Court of Appeal held BARCT means technology available or readily assembled at promulgation; remanded on two categories (quick dry enamels, rust preventive coatings).
- California Supreme Court reverses in part, holding BARCT may contemplate developing technology and that the 2002 amendments were reasonably achievable and properly categorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does BARCT include future technology not yet available at promulgation? | Association: BARCT limited to existing technology. | South Coast: BARCT can rely on developing technology achievable by deadline. | BARCT may include future technology; not limited to existing tech. |
| Are the Rule 1113 categories too broad so achievability must hold for all products within a category? | Association: category breadth prevents finding achievability for all subcategories. | District: categories reasonably drawn; need not prove for every product. | Categories reasonably drawn; not required to be achievable for every subcategory. |
| Was the District's evidentiary showing that the 2002 amendments were achievable adequate and supported? | Association: evidence insufficient or overstated progress. | District: extensive testing, cost analysis, and foreseeability support achievability. | Record supports achievability; amendments not arbitrary or unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (narrow review of quasi-legislative rules; agency authority validated if within statutory mandate)
- Golden Drugs Co., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 179 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. App. 2009) (distinguishes arbitrary/capricious from substantial evidence standard)
- National Paint & Coatings Ass'n., Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Dist., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (rejects application-by-application interpretation of BARCT as unworkable)
- National Lime Assn. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (remanded due to inadequate agency analysis of variables; new-source context)
- United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (technology-forcing standards and regulatory adaptation context)