N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DALTON TR

UC KING, INC
. ; LOGGER S ASSOC IATION OF NOR THER N C ALIFOR

NIA, INC .; R OB INSON ENTER PR ISES, INC .; NUC KLES OIL C O., INC
. , DB A M e rit Oil C om pa ny ; C ALIFOR

NIA C ONSTR

UC TION TR UC KING ASSOC IATION, INC .; C ONSTR UC TION INDUSTR

Y AIR QUALITY C OALITION; DELTA C ONSTR UC TION C OM PANY; SOUTHER

NC ALIFOR

NIA C ONTR AC TOR S ASSOC IATION, INC
. ; R ON C INQUINI FARM ING; UNITED C ONTR AC TOR S, Pe t i tione rs, AM E R IC AN R OAD & TR ANSPOR TATION B UILDER S ASSOC IATION,

Pe t i tione r-Inte rve nor,
v. U.S. ENVIR ONM ENTAL PR OTEC TION AGENC Y; GINA M C C AR THY, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Adm inistra

tor of the No. 13-74019

No. Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

FEB 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.USEPA, R e sponde nts,

C ALIFOR

NIA AIR RESOUR C ES B OARD, R e sponde nt-Inte rve nor.

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 22, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s , a n d OLIVER , * * Distric t Judge
. Pe titione rs (c olle c tive ly

“ Da lton” ) pe tition for re vie w of a Notic e of De c ision whe re by

the Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y (EPA) grante d the re que st by the C a lifornia

Air R e sourc e s B oa

rd (C A RB ) for a

uthoriz ation of its In-UseOffR oa d Die se l-Fue le d Fle e ts R e gula tion (Fle e t

R e quire m e nts). Se e 78 Fe d. R e g. 58,090 (Se p t. 20, 2013). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 7607(b)(1), a nd
we de ny the pe tition for re vie w . Unde r the C le an Air Ac t, the EPA “ sha ll, a fte r notic e and opportunity for public he aring, a

uthoriz e C a lifornia

to a dopt a

nd e nforc e sta

nda rds a nd othe r

* * The Honora

ble Solom on Olive r, Jr., Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judgefor the N orthe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion. 2re quire m e nts re lating to the c ontrol of e m issions from” spe c i fie d nonroa d ve hic le s
or e ngine s “ if C a lifornia

de te rm ine s tha

t C a lifornia

sta nda rds will be , in the
a ggre g at e , at le a s t a s prote c tive of public he a lth a nd we lfare a s a

p plic a ble Fe de ra l sta nda rds.” 42 U.S.C . § 7543(e )(2)(A). Howe ve r, “ [n] o suc h a uthoriz ation shall be grante d” if the EPA finds tha t (am ong othe r things) “ C a lifornia doe s not ne e d
suc h C a lifornia

sta nda rds to m e e t c om

pe lling a nd e xtra ordina

ry c onditions,” § 7543(e )(2)(A)(ii) (re fe rre d to a s the “ n e e ds te s t,” 78 Fe d. R e g. at 58,100). The EPA wa s not a

rbitra ry and c a pric ious in de c lining to find tha t

“ C a lifornia

doe s not ne e d suc h C a lifornia sta nda rds to m e e t c om

pe lling a nd
e xtra ordina

ry c onditions,”

§ 7543(e )(2)(A)(ii), unde r the a lte rnative ve rsion of the
ne e ds te st, whic h re quire s “ a re vie w of whe t

he r the Fle e t R e quire m e nts a re pe r se
ne e de d to m e e t c om

pe l ling a nd e xtra ordina

ry c onditions,”

78 Fe d. R e g. at 58,103. The EPA c o nside re d “ the re le va nt fa c tors,” Motor Ve hic leMfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v

. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o ., Inc
. , 463 U.S. 29, 42–43 (1983), inc luding sta te wide a ir qua lity , 78 Fe d. R e g. 58,104, the sta te ’ s c om plia n c e with fe de ra l Nationa l Am

bie nt Air Qua lity s ta

nda rds for oz one an d PM 2.5 on a sta te w ide ba sis, id. at 58,103–04, the sta

t e wide public he a lth be ne fits, id. at 58,104, a nd the utility of the Fle e t R e quire m e nts in a ssisting C a lifornia to m e e t its goa ls, i d. at 58,110. C ontra ry to Da lton’ s a

rgum e nt , the EPA did not lim i t its re vie w to two of
3C a lifornia ’ s fourte e n a ir qua lity re gions. TheEPA e xam i ne d the re le va nt da ta provide d by

C ARB , a nd it a rtic ulate d a

“ sat isfa c tory

e xpla nation for its ac tion inc l uding a

rationa l c onne c tion be twe e n the fa c ts found a nd the c hoic e m a de .” Se e Motor Ve hic leMfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc

. , 463 U.S. a t 43 (c le a ne d up). B e c a use the EPA ha s c onc e de d tha t it m ust a pply the a lte rnative ve rsion of the n e e ds te st in this c onte xt, we ne e d not a d dre ss Da l ton’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the EPA
m ay not usethe tra ditiona l ve rsion of thene e ds te st, whic h re q uire s a re vie w of whe the r C a lifornia

ne e ds its sta

nda rds in the aggre g ate to m e e t

c o m p e lling a nd
e xtra ordina

ry c onditions, a

nd the re fore is e a sie r to sa tisfy
. 1 W e c onc lude , howe v e r, tha

t the EPA wa s a lso not a

rbitra ry and c a pric ious in de c lining to find that “ C a lifornia

doe s not ne e d suc h C a lifornia sta nda rds” unde r the tra ditional
ve rsion of thene e d s te st. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 7543(e )(2)(A)(ii); 78 Fe d . R e g. at 58,102. W e re je c t Da lton’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t be c a use the EPA fa ile d to give sta ke holde rs a

n opportunity

to c om m e nt on its a

pplic ation of thea lte rnative
ve rsion of thene e d s te st, it c om m itte d a proc e dura l e rror in issuing the Notic e of

1 The que stion whe the r the a lte rnat ive ve rsion of thene e ds te st is a n a ppropria te inte rpre tation of a

provision of the

C le an Air Ac t a na logous to § 7543(e )(2)(A) is c urre nt ly pe nding be fore the D.C . C irc uit. U n ion of C onc e rne d Sc ie ntists v . N

at’l Highway Traffic

Safe ty Admin. , No. 19-1230 (D.C . C ir.). 4De c ision. As re q uire d by the C le an Air Ac t, the EPA provide d “ n otic e and a n opportunity

for public he aring” be fore issuing the Notic e of De c ision. S

e e 42 U.S.C . § 7543(e )(2)(A); 77 Fe d. R e g. 50,500, 50,502 (Aug. 21, 2012). The EPA
wa s fre e to useinform a l a djudic ation to ma ke the de te rm ination re quire d unde r § 7543(e )(2)(A), se eDav is v . U.S. EPA , 348 F.3d 772, 785 (9th C ir. 2003), a nd
a ppropria te ly c om plie d with theinform a l a djudic ation re quire m e nts im p ose d by the A dm i nistra

t ive Proc e dure Ac t in issuing the Notic e of De c ision. Se e 5 U.S.C
. § 555; Pe nsion Be ne

fit Guar. C

orp. v . LTV C

orp. , 496 U.S. 633, 655 (1990). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. 2

2 W ith this disposition, the pa ne l a lso G RANT S Da lton’ s unoppose d m otion to ta ke judic i a l notic e of thre e propose d e xhibits a tta c he d to its supple

m e nta l brie f. Se e D kt. No. 93. 5