Implications of the EPA's Bid to Revoke California's Truck Emissions

The recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke California's authority to set its own truck emissions standards has triggered a significant debate among policymakers, environmental advocates, and industry stakeholders. California has long been at the forefront of environmental regulation, implementing stringent emissions controls aimed at reducing air pollution and combating climate change.

The EPA's move raises critical questions about federal versus state authority in environmental governance and the broader implications for air quality across the nation. By undermining California’s ability to enforce its own regulations, the EPA may inadvertently set a precedent that could limit the ability of other states to adopt aggressive measures to combat pollution. Furthermore, this decision could impact the trucking industry, which is already grappling with compliance challenges and technological shifts towards cleaner vehicles.

As various stakeholders evaluate the repercussions of this policy shift, it is crucial to delve into the potential environmental, economic, and legal ramifications of the EPA's actions. This article will explore the implications of revoking California's truck emissions standards and what it means for the future of environmental regulation in the United States.

Legal fight looms on whether Congress can overturn state’s stricter regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted for Congressional review several waivers related to vehicle emissions that were granted to California during the Biden administration. This action is being framed as an initial step towards potentially rescinding the waivers that enabled California to implement the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule, the Omnibus NOx Rule, and the Clean Cars II Rule, which impose state regulations that exceed federal standards.

Chris Spear, president of the American Trucking Associations, commended this initiative, stating in a prepared statement, “Thanks to the leadership of the Trump Administration, Congress now has an additional opportunity to reclaim regulatory authority from Sacramento and restore rationality to our nation's environmental policies.” However, the legal implications of this move are not straightforward. A key question arises regarding whether Congress has the authority to review a waiver in the same manner as it would a rule that has undergone the formal federal rulemaking process. This legal ambiguity is likely to lead to litigation following the EPA's actions.

Waivers to Congress

The EPA transmitted these previously approved waivers to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which mandates that federal agencies submit rules developed through the rulemaking process to Congress. Once submitted, Congress has a 60-day window to approve or disapprove the rule, with the possibility of overturning it if both chambers agree and the president signs off—an outcome considered uncommon.

The crux of the issue lies in whether a waiver is classified under the CRA as a rule. Glen Kedzie, a former official at the American Trucking Associations now serving as a principal at E&E Strategies, expressed uncertainty about this classification. He noted that the CRA encompasses the broadest definition of a rule as outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, emphasizing that waivers are typically described as agency actions rather than rules when published in the Federal Register.

As per Donald Trump team, the Joe Biden administration did not previously submit these waivers to Congress, and the current transmission raises questions about whether waivers indeed require such submission under the CRA. Kedzie highlighted the complexity of the situation, stating, “It is very complicated and there’s not a lot of black and white. There’s a lot of gray in the whole CRA process.”

Further complicating matters is a November 2023 opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concerning the applicability of the CRA to waivers. This opinion addressed a waiver related to California’s Advanced Clean Cars I rule and indicated that such waivers are considered “adjudicatory orders,” which do not fall under Congressional review as stipulated by the CRA.

The California Air Resources Board

A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that approved the rules in question and requested the waivers from the EPA, criticized the transmission of these requests, asserting that it represents an unprecedented action not compliant with existing laws—referring to the GAO's determination regarding the necessity of Congressional reviews for waivers. This situation marks approximately 50 years since California has utilized the Clean Air Act to pursue waivers that enable the state to implement stricter environmental standards than those mandated federally.

In a press release regarding the waiver transmission, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin did not indicate any belief that the agency's actions were inconsistent with legal requirements. He remarked, “The Biden Administration failed to send rules on California’s waivers to Congress, preventing Members of Congress from deciding on extremely consequential actions that have massive impacts and costs across the entire United States.”

Kedzie pointed out that California has allocated at least $25 million to combat various initiatives from the Trump administration, indicating their readiness to engage in potential litigation concerning the withdrawal of these waivers. The Advanced Clean Trucks Rule establishes sales targets and requirements for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in California, aiming for a fully zero-emission vehicle fleet by 2045. Meanwhile, the Omnibus NOx Rule addresses nitrogen oxide emissions from trucks, with initial regulations being more stringent than federal standards. Notably, CARB and the Engine Manufacturers Association reached an agreement last year to align state regulations with federal standards, thereby averting potential legal challenges from the manufacturers regarding California’s emissions rules.

Two significant questions remain regarding these programs in light of the recent actions by the EPA: First, can the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule succeed if the Advanced Clean Fleets Rule is rendered ineffective, effectively nullifying the requirement for fleets to procure zero-emission vehicles? Second, if OEMs are facing challenges in selling zero-emission vehicles in California partly due to the absence of the Advanced Clean Fleets Rule, how binding is the agreement reached with the association?

In Conclusion

The EPA's move to revoke California's authority to set its own truck emissions standards carries significant implications for both environmental policy and the trucking industry. By undermining California's role as a leader in emissions regulation, this decision could hinder the state's efforts to combat air pollution and address climate change, potentially setting a precedent for other states looking to implement stricter measures.

Additionally, this shift may create uncertainty for manufacturers and fleet operators who have invested in compliance with California's regulations. As the debate continues, it will be crucial for stakeholders to engage in dialogue that balances environmental objectives with economic considerations, ensuring that the pursuit of cleaner air is not sacrificed in the process.

If you want to stay updated with a wide range of trends, actionable insights, and innovative solutions in the trucking, freight, and logistics industry, stay connected to us.

Moreover, If you are looking for more information about drug and alcohol testing as a truck driver, visit LabWorks USA. Our DOT Consortium's friendly team will be more than happy to discuss any concerns you may have and work with you to ensure you are always fully compliant, especially with random DOT drug and alcohol testing. Moreover, if you need help with FMCSA Clearinghouse registration, we can further support you.

Tags: federal government, waiver requests, public health, federal regulation, vehicle emissions standards, National Program, mobile sources, stringent standards, federal rules, road vehicles, vehicle manufacturers, heavy-duty trucks, fuel economy standards, waiver program, waivers in question, voluntary agreement, transportation sector, Heavy-duty Omnibus Regulation, common sense, federal statute, supply chain, greenhouse gas emission standards, emission standards, President-elect Trump, vehicle emission rules, complete zero-emission vehicle fleet, electric vehicle mandate, light-duty vehicles, motor vehicle engines, motor vehicle standards, vehicle emission standards, vehicle emissions waivers, light trucks, zero-emission trucks