California v. Chao

South Coast Air Quality Management District and two other air quality management districts voluntarily dismissed their action challenging the preemption rule. Only the action brought by California and other states remains pending. Proceedings are currently stayed while the remaining plaintiffs and the federal defendants continue discussions regarding the status of the case.

Five months after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) repealed its 2019 rule preempting state regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) voluntarily dismissed their district court complaint challenging the 2019 rule. Two other cases—one brought by states and the other by California air quality management districts—remained pending in the district court for the District of Columbia while the remaining plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors coordinated efforts to determine next steps. <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/union-of-concerned-scientists-v-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration/">Challenges</a> to the preemption rule also remain pending in the D.C. Circuit.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia stayed the cases challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulation preempting state regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The NHTSA regulation was one component of the final rule promulgated by NHTSA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” The other two components were EPA’s withdrawal of the waiver for California’s greenhouse gas and zero-emission vehicle programs and EPA’s determination that other states could not adopt California’s greenhouse gas standards pursuant to Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs—states, California air quality management districts, and non-governmental organizations—challenged NHTSA’s preemption rule in district court while also filing protective petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit. The district court issued its order staying their cases after the D.C. Circuit denied the petitioners’ motions to stay the D.C. Circuit proceedings pending the outcome of the district court litigation (and administrative requests for reconsideration). The cases are staying pending resolution of the D.C. Circuit litigation.

The district court scheduled a hearing for April 16, 2020 to consider the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer.

On December 3, 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the district court cases challenging the preemption regulation. NHTSA argued that the Court of Appeals had exclusive jurisdiction to review the regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act claims related to the preemption regulations. NHTSA also argued that the D.C. Circuit should resolve any question as to whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acted outside its statutory authority in issuing the regulations. NHTSA said the district court should either dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction or transfer them to the D.C. Circuit.

On September 19, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Acting Administrator James Owens signed a final rule in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the waiver that allowed California to promulgate greenhouse gas standards for vehicles and establish a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The rule also finalized text in NHTSA regulations explicitly preempting state regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. EPA and NHTSA described these actions as “legal matters that are independent of the technical details” of proposed federal greenhouse gas and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for light-duty vehicles that EPA and NHTSA have not yet finalized. EPA and NHTSA said the final waiver and preemption actions were necessary to ensure “the existence of one Federal program for light vehicles.” On September 20, California, 23 other states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and Los Angeles filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of Transportation, Owens, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and NHTSA. The states asserted that the preemption regulation exceeded NHTSA’s authority, that the regulation contravened the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Clean Air Act, and that NHTSA failed to consider the regulation’s environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. On September 27, nine nonprofit organizations filed a similar lawsuit challenging the NHTSA regulation.