four-factor test to determine whether a stay is warranted, and should do so here. See, e.g. , id. (citing cases and EPA federal register notices of decisions applying four- part stay test). Here, the factors warrant staying the effectiveness of the Notice of Decision to allow time for judicial review. 2. Administrative Stay under the Clean Air Act Under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (“CAA”), the Administrator also may stay the effectiveness of its decision for “a period not to exceed three months” during reconsideration. Id. § 7607(d)(7)(B). Section 307(d)(7)(B) “sets forth the circumstances under which EPA must reconsider a rule.” Clean Air Council v. Pruitt , 862 F.3d 1, 4–5 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). In other words, reconsideration under Section 307(d)(7)(B) is mandatory and “empowers EPA to stay a final rule if a petitioner demonstrates impracticability and central relevance, the two requirements for mandatory reconsideration.” Id. at 9. Specifically, reconsideration is mandatory under Section 307(d)(7)(B) if (1) at the time of the decision, it was impracticable to raise objections made in the petition for reconsideration, and (2) the objections are of central relevance to the outcome. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B); see also Clean Air Council , 862 F.3d at 5. To date, there has not been a need to stay the effectiveness of the waiver because CARB voluntarily delayed enforcement until Model Year 2026 (“MY2026”). However, engine manufacturers must now commit to a manufacturing process for MY2026. Without a stay, they will be forced to suffer irreparable harm. C. ARGUMENT 1. A Stay Pending Judicial Review Is Warranted under the APA. As noted above, EPA may “postpone the effective date of an action taken by it, pending judicial review” when if finds that “justice so requires.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. Justice requires a stay pending judicial review because allowing the flawed waiver to go into effect will cause significant and irreparable harm to OPEI’s members. a. OPEI Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits. OPEI is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims for reasons stated in its petition for reconsideration, which it incorporates into this request. • The 2021 Amendments Are Not Technically Feasible Although EPA credited CARB’s statement that its 2021 regulations “present no issues regarding technical feasibility because the required technology already exists,” and that, by 2021, zero-emissions equipment was “already available” for
5
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator