EPA Rescinds Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

On February 12, 2026, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zelden announced that the EPA had issued its final rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and repealing all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The action removes existing regulations requiring manufacturers to measure, report, or comply with GHG emission standards, including standards for model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond, while preserving existing criteria pollutant and air toxics emission standards for vehicles.

Rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and GHG Emission Standards

Following the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v EPA,  549 U.S. 497 (2007), in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the EPA was required to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, the EPA, in December of 2009, found that six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) endangered public health and welfare because they contribute to global climate change (the 2009 Endangerment Finding). The EPA also made a related finding at that time pursuant to section 202(a)(1) of the CAA, that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to climate change related pollution. The 2026 final rule reverses the 2009 Endangerment Finding by the EPA. The EPA in its 2026 final rule argues that the EPA “exceeded the agency's authority to combat “air pollution” that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress”. The EPA's final rule rescinds the 2009 EPA Administrator's findings of contribution and endangerment for greenhouse gases under CAA section 202(a)(1), which for the last 16 years has served as the legal basis for the EPA's regulation of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines.

The EPA, by way of its 2026 final rule, has now repealed all GHG emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines manufactured or imported into the US for model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond, affecting regulations in 40 CFR parts 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, and 1039. The EPA's action eliminates emission standards for carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O), methane (CH₄), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioning systems. It eliminates GHG-related testing, reporting, and compliance requirements while removing GHG credit programs and averaging, banking, and trading provisions (ABT). The 2026 final rule does not however, affect criteria pollutant emission standards (NOₓ, HC, PM, CO), air toxic emission standards, evaporative and refueling emission standards, or NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Nor does it repeal the separate endangerment findings that the EPA has made with respect to GHG emissions from stationary sources and aircraft engines.

Basis of EPA's Action

In rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA makes it clear that it is not doing so based on any new endangerment finding with respect to global climate change affects or based on any analysis of the scientific record serving as the basis of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, but rather, that the EPA lacked statutory authority for the 2009 Endangerment Finding for the following reasons:

• Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(1) Limitations:  The EPA concludes that CAA Section 202(a)(1), read in context, authorizes regulation of "air pollution" that threatens public health or welfare through local or regional exposure, not global climate change concerns. The EPA interprets the ordinary meaning of "air pollution" as used in the CAA as referring to pollution causing direct health/welfare impacts through local/regional exposure and that “domestic regulation can impact without requiring international emission reductions”, noting that the EPA applied this authority for 44 years, until 2009, only to local/regional air pollution concerns.
• Major Questions Doctrine:  Under the Major Questions Doctrine, as applied in West Virginia v. EPA,  597 U.S. 697 (2022), federal agencies cannot assert authority over issues of "vast economic and political significance" without clear congressional approval. The EPA, in the preamble to its 2026 final rule states that it lacks "clear congressional authorization" required under the Major Questions Doctrine, to decide the country's response to global climate change concerns, arguing that prescribing emission standards that force a transition to electric vehicles exceeds its statutory authority. The EPA notes that the 2009 Endangerment Finding based on the effects from global climate change, represented a "novel authority" as from 1965 through 2009, the EPA never used CAA Section 202(a)(1) to assert authority over global climate change, and that Congress previously "considered and rejected multiple times" legislation that would have authorized the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles.

EPA Also Cites Several Scientific and Practical Justifications for its 2026 Final Rule, Including:

• Futility of GHG Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles:  The EPA argues that modeling shows that even complete elimination of all GHG emissions from US vehicles would have only de minimis impacts on global temperature and sea level rise, with projected impacts of approximately 0.013°C difference in global temperature by 2050 and 0.037°C by 2100. The EPA concludes that GHG emission standards are futile because they have no material impact on global climate change concerns, noting that actual EPA standards would achieve only a fraction of total elimination impacts.
• Scientific Rationale:  The EPA also asserts that "the scientific record does not support a finding that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare", and that “there is no requisite control technology for LD and MD vehicle and engines that would meaningfully address the potential public health or welfare impacts since there is no technology that would completely eliminate all GHG emissions from vehicles”.

Federal Preemption of State Regulation of GHG Vehicle Emissions

According to the EPA, federal preemption of state regulation of vehicle GHG emissions continues to apply even after rescinding existing federal GHG standards.

CAA section 209(a) provides that "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." The statute "by its own force" continues to preempt "any" State or local law, regulation, or cause of action that adopts or attempts to enforce "any standard relating to the control of emissions." Because new motor vehicles and engines that have been subject to GHG emission standards remain subject to Title II of the CAA, the statute would by its own force continue to preempt state or local laws regardless of whether the EPA no longer sets standards for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles or engines.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, provides that when "an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a state or a 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."

The EPA also points out that on June 12, 2025, President Trump signed three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that "void[ed] waivers we granted under CAA section 209 that allowed California and participating States to enforce GHG emission regulations for motor vehicles and engines, up to and including zero-emission standards that mandated a shift to electric vehicles." This action specifically affected California's Advanced Clean Cars II program, which "required an increasing amount of EVs to be sold so that by 2035 100 percent of new cars and light trucks sold in California would be zero-emission vehicles, including PHEV." While the state of California and a coalition of 10 other states are challenging these resolutions, it nonetheless places another hurdle limiting state regulation of vehicle GHG emissions.

What Comes Next

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2026, and takes effect on April 20, 2026. Judicial review of the final rule must be brought pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) by the effective date of the rule. On February 18th, a lawsuit was filed by a broad coalition of health and environmental groups in the DC Circuit against the EPA challenging the legality of the EPA's actions. Several states, including California have also vowed to file lawsuits. These lawsuits add to the uncertainty facing the automotive industry and others pending the outcome of these legal challenges.

Auto Industry Implications

It is unclear how automakers, the supply chain, or the public will ultimately respond to the 2026 rule, but ongoing legal challenges and the potential for congressional intervention leave these stakeholders in a state of flux. In either event, the persistence of changes leaves the industry in a period of uncertainty and directional change. Companies have invested billions in EV technology based on previous rules and have adjusted based on the elimination of incentives including those to build plants in the US, build the required infrastructure, develop renewable energy to meet the energy demands, and buy electric vehicles. Some companies have publicly stated that they remain committed to improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions regardless of federal regulatory changes. Other companies, especially suppliers, are reeling from the loss of programs where they may have done extensive planning and acquisition of capital equipment. Some consumers remain committed to buying lower emission vehicles, including pure electric vehicles. Further, companies prefer to have one standard for design and manufacturing ease, not different standards depending on where the vehicle is sold. In general, companies are weighing what consumers want in the US and globally, along with the risk of a reversal of the rule and future administration reinstating the standards. Companies may not want to be considered a leader by taking actions (or not taking actions) perceived to cause more pollution or harm to human health and the environment, especially in light of requirements like Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act promoting environmental justice and corporate liability. On the other hand, measuring, reporting, and certifying GHG emissions from vehicles has been expensive and a burden on companies. Not having to perform the tests and produce the reports will undoubtedly be a relief for some companies. 

Overall, this leaves the automotive supplier community in the middle of a challenging decision: how to mitigate risks in an uncertain US regulatory environment. While technology developments and requirements continue to advance globally, decisions will need to be made regarding engineering staffing, design direction, and emerging technology manufacturing sites.

Impacted companies will need to follow the lawsuits and evaluate how the final rule, if upheld, impacts their state, international and individual corporate GHG related obligations, some of which may be pursuant to regulations not dependent on endangerment findings. Companies will also need to determine what their customers want and decide whether the company wants to remain committed to the reduction of GHG. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.