Diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the Air Resources Board in 1998 after study results showed its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems.^[3] Two years later, in September 2000, the Air Resources Board adopted the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles which committed to establish retrofit requirements for in-use diesel vehicles to reduce diesel particulate matter 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020.^[4] In 2007 the Air Resources Board then adopted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which requires heavy-duty in-use diesel trucks operating in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley to be retrofitted to meet model year 2007 emission levels by 2014 and 2017, respectively. The State Implementation Plan was implemented to help California's Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and also aims to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx) and ozone in the state. This regulation is the next step to help the Air Resources Board achieve their goal to reduce diesel particulate matter.

With the new amendments in place, diesel emissions are estimated to be 68 percent lower than they would be without the regulation, and emissions of the smog-forming pollutant, nitrogen oxide, will be 25 percent lower.^[1] The regulation also aims to save lives and dollars spent on health care. The Air Resources Board estimates that the reduction in diesel emissions is expected to save 9,400 lives within the 11 year time frame and reduce health care costs, with an estimated savings between US$48 billion and $69 billion.^[1] By the time the rule is fully implemented in 2023, no truck or bus more than 13 years old will be allowed to operate in California without particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions controls.

Support edit

The Truck and Bus Rule is considered by the Air Resources Board and other organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund as a win-win for the State of California: reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, reducing fuel use, providing fuel and operating cost-savings for truck owners, and reducing smog-forming pollution, in addition to providing human health benefits. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the retrofits could reduce global warming pollution by 17 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) by 2020 and a net savings of $30,000 over the life of one long-range truck.^[5] In addition to reducing air pollution, this regulation is thought to have helped broaden and strengthen the environmental movement in California.

Opposition edit

On February 15, 2011, the California Dump Truck Owners Association (CDTOA) which changed its name to the California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA) in January 2012, filed suit against CARB, stating the Truck and Bus Rule is "unconstitutional as it is preempted by the Federal Aviation Authorization Act (FAAAA) and seeks an injunction prohibiting CARB from enforcing the rule".^[6] The FAAAA, enacted in 1994 by the U.S. Congress, "prohibits any state or any political subdivision from enacting or enforcing any regulation related to the price, route, or service of a motor carrier".^[7]

The California Dump Truck Owners Association also expresses concerns about the regulation because of the costs to retrofit or replace engines and the economic impact it will have on small business owners whose livelihood relies on the income generated by their trucks. Many of the association's members work closely with the construction industry; therefore, business is already slow during this economic depression. The association has alerted the Air Resources Board that many small businesses will close down if they cannot afford to comply with the regulation.^[7]

The science which supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Air Resources Board's conclusions about the health impacts of diesel particulate matter are also disputed. The conclusions being made to protect human health are considered "exaggerated" and not supported by other research in the field, there are also claims that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Air Resources Board did not correctly calculate all the necessary cancer risks in order to properly regulate diesel emissions.^[8]

Other Key Legal Actions & Dates: On October 30, 2013, CCTA received an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal denying its motion for reconsideration of the ‘en banc’ (full court) petition to review the EPA's determination and approval of the California State Implementation Plan or SIP. This was a longshot based on the timing issues, as the SIP was ‘stealthily’ filed and approved during the litigation against CARB. Related to this is a petition directly to EPA for reconsideration of the approval of the SIP by EPA – again all ‘surreptitiously’ done during direct litigation. This challenge is more an exercise of thoroughness than legal utility. The CCTA's main legal action or FAAAA argument claim, stating that state law (CARB regulations) violates federal law is also on Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. The appeal of Judge England's order saying that "he no longer had authority over the case" is still pending and will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. 1/16/12 – CCTA files a Notice to Appeal with the 9th Circuit Court. View Appeal

2012 12/19/12 – Judges England renders decision. Does not address any elements of our complaint but instead states that “it cannot retain jurisdiction over this action in light of EPA’s approval of the Truck and Bus Regulation as part of California’s SIP”. EPA is now considered an indispensable party to our litigation. View Decision (130.3 kB 2013-01-17 15:57:28). 9/6/12 – Final hearing on our request for relief under the Supremacy Clause (decision pending shortly). 7/19/12 – Court orders second round of supplemental briefing, at issue is whether EPA's SIP adoption makes it an indispensable party 5/31/12 – Court orders supplemental briefs regarding EPA adoption of the SIP (Supplemental briefing completed by 7/12/12) 5/21/12 – Court orders on its own motion the case is stayed indefinitely (MSJ still pending) 2/8/12 – Eve of hearing on MSJ, matter ordered submitted without oral argument 1/30/12 – Order denying preliminary injunction 1/18/12 – Hearing on Summary Judgment continued to 2/9/12

2011 12/15/11 – Hearing on preliminary injunction 11/15/11 – CDTOA Motion for preliminary injunction (a secondary lawsuit) 7/5/11 – CDTOA Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ); Hearing originally set for 9/6/11, but continued to 1/26/12 to permit discovery

Section 2025 of the rule states that "The purpose of this regulation is to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and other criteria pollutants, and greenhouse gases from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles".^[9] All fleet owners, with the exception of small fleets, have three options to comply with the regulation:

1. They can choose to implement the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). To meet control requirements for both particulate matter and nitrogen oxide, owners can choose to retrofit or replace existing diesel vehicles based on a compliance schedule for engine model years every year starting in 2011.
2. A percent of the total fleet must meet particulate matter Best Available Control Technology and nitrogen oxide Best Available Control Technology by January 1 of each compliance year, by retrofitting or replacing existing diesel vehicles.
3. The fleet must meet an average requirement set by the Air Resources Board for particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, or both pollutants, depending on the Nitrogen Oxide Index and Particulate Matter Index established by CARB.^[9]

These regulations apply to any business, person, federal government agency or school district that owns, operates, sells or runs vehicles operated on diesel-fuel.^[9]