Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
In response to industry lawsuit, Supreme Court determines that parts of Southern California’s rules mandating the use of clean-fuel criteria for fleet vehicles are likely preempted by the Clean Air Act
Status: Final
Discussion & Analysis: Los Angeles-area residents have long been plagued by the nation’s most polluted air. The South Coast Air Basin, comprising Los Angeles and portions of the surrounding counties, is the only area in the United States classified by EPA as an “extreme non-attainment area” for ozone, and one of only five areas designated as a “serious non-attainment area” for small particulate matter. In 2000, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted six new “fleet rules” that required public and private fleet vehicle operators to meet certain clean-fuel criteria in their procurement of fleet vehicles (including, for example, street sweepers, transit buses, garbage trucks, and heavy-duty utility vehicles). These rules targeted the problem of diesel exhaust, a major contributor to the total cancer risk from air pollution. Associations representing engine manufacturers and the oil industry sued, arguing that the fleet rules are expressly preempted by Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits states and localities from adopting “any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.” The lower courts found no preemption.
The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Scalia ruled that the lower courts had interpreted the word “standard” in Section 209 too narrowly, to include only regulations that compel manufacturers to meet specified emission limits. That interpretation, the Court said, allowed lower courts to make a distinction between regulations restricting the types of vehicles could be made available for sale, on the one hand (which would be preempted), and restricting what kind of vehicles purchasers may buy, on the other (no preemption). The Court rejected this analysis, deeming it “likely that at least certain aspects” of the fleet procurement rules were preempted, but leaving this determination to be made by the lower courts on remand. Justice Souter, the lone dissenter, countered in part that the majority’s interpretation failed to adhere to “the well-established presumption against preemption.”
In the most recent installment of this litigation (now spanning over seven years), the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2007 that the Clean Air Act does not preempt California’s fleet rules, insofar as the rules direct the procurement behavior of state and local government entities. The court based its conclusion on the “market participant doctrine,” an avenue left open by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Under this doctrine, actions taken by a state or political subdivision in its role as a market participant, rather than in its role as a regulator, are generally protected from federal preemption. The district court has now been left to determine whether the Clean Air Act preempts the remaining provisions of the fleet rules that pertain to non-state actors. Events on the ground have long since outpaced this litigation: since 2005, SCAQMD has sought to apply its contested fleet rules only to state and local public entities, and to their private-sector contractors.
In the final installment of this lengthy litigation, the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2007 that the Clean Air Act does not preempt California’s fleet rules insofar as the rules direct the procurement behavior of state and local government entities. The court based its conclusion on the “market participant doctrine,” an avenue left open by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Under this doctrine, actions taken by a state or political subdivision in its role as a market participant, rather than in its role as a regulator, are generally protected from federal preemption. In early 2008, the district court and the parties implemented the Ninth’s Circuit mandate through a stipulated entry of judgment under which the court determined that the fleet rules are not preempted insofar as they direct the decisions of state and local government entities, and private entities under contract to them; but that the fleet rules are preempted insofar as they purport to direct the decisions of federal government entities and private entities not under contract to the state.
Key Opinion: Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District, 541 U.S. 246 (2004), vacating 309 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2002), affirming 158 F.Supp.2d 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2001). For the latest ruling in this litigation, see Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District, 498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007), remanded to No. 00-9065 FMC (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) (stipulated entry of judgment).
See Also: Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Goldstene, __F.3d __, 2008 WL 509213 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that California’s “Marine Vessel Rules”—which limited emissions from the auxiliary diesel engines of ocean-going vessels plying California’s coastal waters—are preempted by the Clean Air Act).
 |