The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday dismissed petitions for review brought by several states, environmental groups and industry representatives against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to lack of jurisdiction. The EPA has begun the process of changing the rules governing emission standards for motor vehicles but has not issued a final rule. As such, the court decided that the petitioners lack the jurisdiction necessary to petition for a judicial review.
Though Congress generally prohibits states from setting their own emission standards, the EPA can waive Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for states that set their standards on par with, or higher than, the federal government. Until Congress passed Section 177 of the CAA in 1977, only California had been granted a waiver. Section 177 permits waivers for states that match their standards to those of California.
In 2009 the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that they would coordinate their emission standards. The “National Program” that resulted set increased emission standards for motor vehicles models released from 2012 to 2016. The new rules represented a consensus of opinions from the EPA, NHTSA, California and major motor vehicle manufacturers. The program set further increases to the emission standards for motor vehicle models from 2022 to 2025. California agreed to change its own regulations and allow compliance with new rules to count as compliance with its own standards.
In 2017 the EPA completed a Midterm Evaluation. The evaluation found that the increased standards set for 2022 to 2025 remained valid and left them unaltered. In 2018 the EPA concluded that the standards set for 2022 to 2025 were inappropriate. Specifically, it called them “too stringent.” This has not changed current standards, or invalidated the current rules. The petitioners argued that by issuing the revised determination, the EPA violated procedural and substantive requirements, and that the actions were arbitrary and capricious. The appeals court disagreed. Under the CAA, the judiciary can only review “final action.” As the EPA has not taken a final action, the petitioners have no standing or jurisdiction.
