Opinion ID: 520593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the validity of the scheduling order

Text: 37 The citizens' suit provision of the Clean Air Act gives the district court the authority to enforce ... emission standard[s] or limitation[s]. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7604(a). As discussed above, see supra at 323, the emission standard at issue in this case was the SIP requirement that New Jersey promulgate and implement Stage II and barge loading controls. However, in this case it was impossible for the court simply to enforce the schedules set in the SIP for implementation and promulgation because most of the dates set in the SIP had long since passed. See New Jersey SIP for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide at 54-55 (Sept. 1983). The district court was thus presented with the task of revising the schedule, consonant with the purpose of the Clean Air Act, to ensure that New Jersey came into compliance with the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(a). 38 The scheduling order entered by the district court is an equitable order, made within the ambit of the district court's discretion to fashion appropriate remedies. We will set aside such an order only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Kingstate Oil v. M/V Green Star, 815 F.2d 918, 922 (3d Cir.1987). Appellants challenge both the way in which the scheduling order was set and the substance of the order.
39 All parties were given thirty-six days to submit proposed scheduling orders to the court. NACS argues that the district court abused its discretion in setting so brief a period for development of a schedule, because it did not afford NJDEP time to hold hearings and thoroughly investigate the feasibility of a schedule for implementing Stage II controls. 7 As NACS put it, there was no compelling deadline which dictated the District Court's immediate action, NACS Brief at 13, and thus the district court should have given the litigants at least several more weeks so that the agency could gather and deliberate about all relevant information. 40 We disagree with NACS's implication that speed was not of the essence in setting the timetable for implementation of the regulation. In adopting the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which provided that states must be in compliance with the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1987, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(a), Congress made it clear that the states were to embark on the task of improving air quality as quickly as they could. We further note that the violation of law for which the judge was granting relief in the scheduling phase of the trial was that New Jersey had dragged its feet in implementing the regulations it had obligated itself to adopt in its SIP. Finally, we note that NJDEP has not joined in this appeal, and thus has not contested the amount of time it was given to propose a schedule; apparently it is satisfied that it was given enough time to come up with a reasonable proposal. 41 In view of the facts that: (1) the Clean Air Act mandates speedy action; (2) in this suit the American Lung Association and other groups were specifically seeking relief from the state's delays in implementing required regulations; and (3) NJDEP itself apparently thinks the time it was given was adequate, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in granting the parties thirty-six days to develop recommended timetables.
42 NACS and API also argue that the district court abused its discretion in adopting the schedule proposed by NJDEP for implementing Stage II control regulations, contending that the evidence suggests that the schedule will be impracticable. The schedule requires large gasoline stations to be in compliance with the new regulation by December 30, 1988, and requires smaller stations to achieve full compliance by December 29, 1989. See Scheduling Order, app. A at A-1. The district court based its decision on evidence introduced by NJDEP to the effect that it would take 25 weeks to install Stage II controls at the 2,000 largest stations and 27 1/2 weeks to install controls at the remaining regulated stations. Scheduling Opinion at 12. The district court found that NJDEP's proposed schedule which provided 27 weeks for large-station installation and 43 weeks for the remaining stations was certainly practicable. Id. Appellants contend that the timetable adopted by the court is neither physically nor economically practicable. 43 As support for the feasibility of its proposed implementation schedule, NJDEP submitted notes documenting a telephone survey in which members of NJDEP contacted various contractors in New Jersey and asked them how long it would take them to install Stage II controls, and how many crews they had available, and then recorded and tabulated this information. As appellants point out, this survey is incomplete--for example, it did not take account of the fact that some crews might be busy installing Stage II controls in other states. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in setting the schedule because appellants did not offer persuasive evidence to contradict the district court's conclusion as to practicability. 44 Appellants submitted a report they had commissioned earlier for submission to EPA after EPA had asked for public comment on Stage II controls. The report discussed the feasibility of implementing Stage II controls, using Philadelphia and Dallas as representative cities. However, the timetables in the report are based on assumptions not necessarily relevant for New Jersey. For example, the Philadelphia estimate is based on the time it took to implement Stage I controls 8 in Philadelphia, the implementation of which was not a procedure rushed by court order, and which was constrained by the number of contractors available in the Philadelphia area, which may be different from the number available in New Jersey. 45 Most of the other evidence that appellants offered as to the availability of contractors in New Jersey and the time it would take them to install stage II equipment comes from affidavits from representatives of oil companies and gas station associations--entities that have an economic interest in having the implementation of Stage II control regulations proceed slowly. Furthermore, these estimates are vague and are based on general past experience rather than specific evidence. There is no reason to believe that these estimates are better than the estimates made by NJDEP. 9 The district court was therefore justified in adopting NJDEP's estimates. 46 Moreover, the fact that the plan adopted by the court was in fact proposed by NJDEP adds to its credibility. NJDEP has no incentive to unduly accelerate the regulatory process. Additionally, NJDEP not only supervised notice and comment on the feasibility of implementing Stage II controls at the time the SIP was drafted, but the agency also subsequently monitored notice and comment on two proposals for Stage II implementation. Thus, NJDEP drew not only on the phone survey but also on its expertise on the subject of Stage II regulation, garnered in the regulatory process. EPA also endorsed the NJDEP plan, while dismissing the intervenors' proposed scheduled as protracted and misleading. Letter from EPA (Nov. 7, 1987). EPA has expertise in the area of Stage II regulation, so it was right for the district court to give weight to EPA's opinion. All of these factors support the district court's decision. 47 Finally, the district court has retained jurisdiction over this matter. See Scheduling Order at 6. To the extent that it turns out to be physically impracticable for the gas stations to comply with the district court's order, they can introduce new evidence, and the court can modify its prior order.
48 Appellants also argue that the timetable set by the district court for implementation of Stage II controls is economically impracticable. They argue that the cost of installing Stage II controls is being made needlessly expensive because the timetable does not coordinate Stage II control installation with other gas station excavations and thus might require gas stations to engage in two separate excavations. 49 We believe that the district court was correct in dismissing appellants' economic practicability arguments. As the court pointed out, it is not for a federal court to revise a SIP merely because it thinks it is better able to create economic efficiency. See Scheduling Opinion at 10-11. The SIP does not call for coordination of excavation at gas stations; it calls for implementation of Stage II controls by the end of 1987. If parties think that changes in circumstances make the requirements of the SIP unduly harsh, the proper course in general is to comply with administrative procedures for revising the SIP. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(3)(A) (setting out standard by which the EPA Administrator approves SIP revisions). 50 Appellants point out that the statute mandates that ozone regulation should proceed as expeditiously as practicable, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7502(a) (emphasis added), and argue that, despite the fact that the statute contemplates revision by agencies rather than the courts, a court attempting to effectuate the statutory purpose should take into account whether the requirements of a SIP are economically practicable. We need not reach the issue of whether it would ever be appropriate for a court to take into account arguments relating to the cost of compliance because in this case, although appellants offered evidence of duplication of costs, they have never offered evidence that would prove that the increase in cost by the failure of the schedule to coordinate the timing of excavations would be so significant as to make the timetable that the court adopted economically impracticable.
51 API also argues that the district court abused its discretion in adopting NJDEP's proposed timetable for implementation of barge loading controls. API points out that the U.S. Coast Guard is currently considering adopting nation-wide barge loading control regulations, and that the United States Department of Transportation has requested that states refrain from adopting such regulations so that a uniform national policy can be adopted and barges moving in interstate commerce are spared from inconsistent barge loading control regulations. See Letter from Secretary of Transportation Dole to Governor Deukmajian of California, (Feb. 25, 1986). The schedule adopted by the court provides for final implementation of barge loading regulations by February 28, 1990. See Scheduling Order, app. A at A-2. The Coast Guard, on the other hand, contemplates receipt of an advisory committee report on the subject of barge loading controls by February 1989 and expects to promulgate final rules by February 1990. See Scheduling Opinion at 15. 52 The district court acknowledged that the New Jersey regulations might clash with the eventual federal regulations. The court thus directed New Jersey to consult with the Coast Guard, so that it could benefit from the Coast Guard's expertise, and so that the regulations New Jersey adopts can anticipate, insofar as possible, the forthcoming federal regulations. See Scheduling Opinion at 16. Given that the district court has done this much to minimize potential conflicts, and given that the schedule set in the adopted timetable already gives barge owners a more than two-year reprieve from the timetable set in the SIP, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in setting the schedule for barge loading controls. 10 53 API also argues that the timetable set by the court will engender unnecessary expenses because the barge owners and dock owners may have to pay to implement controls that conform to the New Jersey regulations, and pay again to modify the controls if the federal regulations are adopted and are not identical, and because the schedule is not tied to the schedule on which barges are taken out of service for routine maintenance. We believe that the district court correctly rejected these arguments for the same reasons, discussed above, that it correctly rejected the arguments that the schedule for Stage II controls would create duplicate expenses. See supra at 329-30.