associated service revenue if the waiver is not rescinded. Id . ¶ 12. The California market is also significant for STIHL, a leading manufacturer of gas and electric- powered residential- and commercial-use outdoor power equipment. Brusadin Decl., ¶¶ 2, 10. If the SORE Amendments are enforced, STIHL will suffer a significant loss of annual sales in California, where, prior to approval of the SORE Amendments, STIHL certified 26 exhaust emission families for sale. Id . ¶ 10. The certification process for MY2026 must begin immediately. Gulden Decl., ¶¶ 15-18; Rugg Decl., ¶¶ 17–30 (describing certification process). Any delay in that process will also delay production, shipment, and sales in a market that is largely seasonal and requires precise timing. Gulden Decl., ¶¶15–18; Rugg Decl., ¶ 20; Brusadin Decl., ¶¶13–14. Moreover, because California prohibits stockpiling of engines and equipment, ECHO, like other manufacturers, does not have extra inventory lying around that it can use to help fill the gaps caused by delay. Gulden Decl., ¶ 18. c. Other Parties Will Not Be Harmed by Staying the Effective Date. Any harm a stay might cause to CARB, the EPA, and/or the public is negligible. Air quality is protected by federal SORE emissions standards, which remain in effect, and CARB’s Tier III standards for Model Year 2023 also provide protections. See Zeilstra Decl., ¶ 16. CARB also recently delayed implementation of the regulations the waiver authorizes, pushing enforcement to MY2026 in response to practical considerations raised when EPA failed to issue the Notice of Decision until January 6, 2025. Staying the effective date for MY2026 to allow time to resolve any uncertainty about the waiver’s legality would preserve the status quo (waiver not in effect) and avoid the irreparable harm that will occur to engine manufacturers if they are forced to comply with an unlawful waiver that is subsequently rescinded. d. It Is in the Public Interest to Stay the Effective Date. Through the CAA, Congress balanced competing public interests in air quality, compliance costs, and market demands. In recognition of those competing interests, the CAA preempts state and local government from imposing their own standards on mobile engines. See Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA , 88 F.3d 1075, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (noting that preemption avoids imposing a patchwork regulatory scheme on manufacturers because “the possibility of 50 different state regulatory regimes ‘raised the specter of an anarchic patchwork of federal and state regulatory programs, a prospect which threatened to create nightmares for the manufacturers.’”) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA , 627 F.2d 1095, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). The only exception is California, but, even then, California must demonstrate it has met the CAA’s requirements for technological feasibility and sufficient lead
9
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator