784 F.3d 500
9th Cir.2015Background
- CARB adopted the Truck and Bus Regulation (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, §2025) to reduce emissions from in‑use heavy‑duty diesel trucks; it took effect Jan. 1, 2012.
- CARB submitted the Regulation to EPA for incorporation into California’s SIP; EPA proposed approval in July 2011 and issued final approval on April 4, 2012 (effective May 4, 2012).
- The California Dump Truck Owners Association sued in district court (filed April 2011) seeking to enjoin state enforcement, arguing the Regulation is preempted by the FAAAA (49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1)).
- The suit was pending in district court while EPA completed SIP approval; after EPA’s final approval the district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under CAA §307(b)(1).
- The Truck Association appealed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the suit effectively challenged the EPA’s approval of a SIP provision and therefore belonged in the court of appeals under §307(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court retains jurisdiction after EPA approved a state regulation into the SIP | Truck Assn.: suit challenges only the state regulation, not EPA action or the SIP; relief would bar CARB enforcement but would not prevent EPA or citizen enforcement | CARB/EPA: EPA approval converted the regulation into part of the SIP; an effective challenge to state enforcement necessarily challenges the SIP/EPA approval and must go to the court of appeals under §307(b)(1) | Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—§307(b)(1) channels challenges to EPA SIP approvals exclusively to the courts of appeals |
| Whether the suit, as a practical matter, nullifies the SIP’s enforcement apparatus | Truck Assn.: invalidating state rule leaves SIP enforceable by EPA/citizens; state enforcement is distinct | CARB/EPA: SIP’s effectiveness depends on state enforcement; enjoining CARB would eviscerate the SIP and thus challenge EPA’s approval | Held: Court agrees Petrol’s suit would practically nullify SIP enforcement, bringing it within §307(b)(1) |
| Whether EPA need be a party (Rule 19) | Truck Assn.: sought relief only against CARB; did not seek to enjoin EPA enforcement | CARB/EPA: EPA is a necessary party because its approval is central to the dispute | Held: Court did not resolve Rule 19 issue because dismissal on §307(b)(1) jurisdictional ground was dispositive |
| Whether doctrine of fairness/availability of forum excuses timely appeal requirement | Truck Assn.: district court delay and timing left no realistic appellate remedy; unfair to be time‑barred | CARB/EPA: Truck Assn. had notice EPA intended SIP incorporation and could have filed timely in the court of appeals after final EPA action; failing to do so is its choice | Held: Court rejects fairness argument; strict §307(b)(1) review channeling and timeliness apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 770 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.) (describing cooperative federal–state SIP regime)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (approved SIPs become federal law)
- Bayview Hunters Point Cmty. Advocates v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, 366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir.) (SIP enforcement channels and citizen‑suit context)
- Virginia v. United States, 74 F.3d 517 (4th Cir.) (§307(b)(1) bars district suits that in practice nullify EPA final actions)
- United States v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F.2d 1099 (6th Cir.) (invalidation of EPA‑approved SIP occurs only in courts of appeals)
- Sierra Club v. Ind.-Ky. Elec. Corp., 716 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir.) (post‑state‑procedural invalidation and effect on SIP enforceability)
- Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., 132 S. Ct. 1204 (Sup. Ct.) (agency approval can change posture of Supremacy Clause challenges; directs APA/administrative review when appropriate)
- El Comité Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.) (CAA relies heavily on state enforcement of SIPs)