UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ...

The DOT has delegated the responsibility for setting fuel economy standards to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). 49 C.F.R. § 1.50(f). The NHTSA
must weigh four factors when setting standards: “technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy,
and the need of the United States to conserve energy.” 49 U.S.C. § 32902(f). The NHTSA has
interpreted “economic practicability” to include consideration of consumer choice, economic
hardship for the auto industry, and vehicle safety. Green Mountain, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 307.
The EPCA also contains an express preemption clause:
When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter . . .
is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may not adopt or
enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average
fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel
economy standard under this chapter.
49 U.S.C. § 32919(a). This language is quite clear in its direction: “Congress’s undoubted intent
was to make the setting of fuel economy standards exclusively a federal concern.” Green
Mountain, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 354. The preemption provision also contains an exemption, or a
savings clause: “A State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe requirements for fuel
economy for automobiles obtained for its own use.” 49 U.S.C. § 32919(c).
Plaintiffs argue that the TLC’s 25/30 Rules are preempted by the express language of §
32919(a) and also impliedly preempted because the rules interfere with the federal fuel economy
program, thwarting Congress’ intent that regulation of fuel economy standards occur at the
national level. They also argue that the City is not exempted from preemption by the savings
clause at § 32919(c) because taxicabs in New York City are not vehicles for the City’s “own
use.”
Case 1:08-cv-07837-PAC Document 51 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 15 of 26
15