Engine Manufacturers Assn. & Western States Petroleum Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. (04/28/2004)

Questions presented: Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ? 7401 et seq.

BY: EMILY DUPUIS, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Californias South Coast Air Basin, an area encompassing Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties, holds the distinction of having the worst air quality in the nation.

The Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups point accusatory fingers at the cars, trucks and buses that clog the areas roadways. Studies have shown that motor vehicles contribute more than half of the ozone precursors emitted in the area and are a main source of toxic pollution.

Diesel trucks and buses are the worst offenders. They have been found to contribute significantly to smog and fine particles, two pollutants that seriously impact public health and increase risk of lung cancer.

While other air pollution sources like factories and power plants are regulated by the state, mobile sources like cars are trucks are regulated by federal law under section 209 (a) of the Clean Air Act. The act preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emissions in an effort to "ensure uniformity throughout the nation" and to smooth bumps in interstate commerce.

Since 1967, Congress has allowed California to create its own emission standards as long as the state obtains EPA approval for a waiver of preemption.

The California legislature authorized the South Coast Air Quality Management Division to adopt Fleet Rules in an effort to reduce public exposure to motor vehicle pollution. The rules mandate that an operator of a local fleet of 15 or more vehicles purchase only low-emission vehicles or vehicles that run on alternative fuels. Organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment, Planning and Conservation League and Sierra Club were supportive of the districts attempts.

The Engine Manufacturers Association, a not-for-profit trade association that represents the leading manufacturers of internal combustion engines, sued to rescind these requirements. The complaint, filed in conjunction with the Western State Petroleum Association, challenged the constitutionality of the Fleet Rules. The associations claimed the rules interfere with the clear division of authority established by the Clean Air Act, and violate sections 209 and 177 of the act as well as the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Section 209 (a) of the Clean Air Act states, "No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, tilting (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment."

Section 177 allows other states to "piggyback" onto Californias standards if such standards are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted for such model year, and California and the opt-in state adopt such standards at least two years before commencement of such model year.

The associations argued that the Fleet Rules violate Section 209 because they constitute "standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines" and establish unlawful conditions precedent to the sale of new motor vehicles or engines.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District argued the Fleet Rules do not set independent emission standards; they encourage fleet owners to make environmentally-sound new purchases.

The U. S. District Court for the Central District of California concluded that the Clean Air Act did not preempt the Fleet Rules and that the rules do not constitute unlawful standards "elating to the control of emissions."

"The court does not accept Plaintiff's interpretation of the impact of the Fleet Rules. The Rules regulate the purchasing and leasing, not the sale, of vehicles by fleet operators." Judge Florence-Marie Cooper found." The Rules impose no new emission requirements on manufacturers against having to build engines in compliance with a multiplicity of standards."

She added that the rules do not put any additional burden on auto manufacturers.

"Automobile manufacturers will not be forced to do something more than they already must do," wrote Cooper. "The Fleet Rules may lead to decreased demand for some cars and trucks certified for sale in California, but the Rules do not require the manufacturers to build or sell any particular model for this area."

On Oct. 24, 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court in a two-sentence order "for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned opinion." A petition for rehearing was denied.

On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review.