American Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection Agency
559 F.3d 512 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Air Act, an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), particularly when it does not adequately consider all relevant scientific evidence or explain how the standard protects vulnerable subpopulations with an adequate margin of safety. For secondary NAAQS intended to protect public welfare, the agency must first determine the level of protection required by the statute before setting the air quality standard.
Facts:
- Particulate Matter (PM) is a form of air pollution classified by particle size into categories such as fine PM (PM2.5) and coarse PM.
- Scientific studies have established that exposure to PM is associated with adverse public health effects, including increased mortality and morbidity like cardiovascular disease and decreased lung function, especially in sensitive groups such as children and the elderly.
- Fine PM also impairs visibility, which is considered an adverse effect on public welfare under the Clean Air Act.
- The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set primary NAAQS that are 'requisite to protect the public health' with an 'adequate margin of safety,' and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare.
- During its 2006 rulemaking process, the EPA decided to retain the existing primary annual NAAQS for fine PM (PM2.5) at a level of 15 µg/m³.
- The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and its technical staff recommended lowering the annual fine PM standard to a level between 12 and 14 µg/m³.
- CASAC and EPA staff based their recommendations on studies indicating adverse health effects, including irreversible lung damage in children, occurred at fine PM concentrations below the existing 15 µg/m³ standard.
- The EPA also finalized secondary NAAQS for fine PM to be identical to the primary standards, rejecting CASAC's recommendation for a distinct standard specifically designed to protect against visibility impairment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) engaged in rulemaking to review and revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter.
- On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued its final rule, maintaining the primary annual standard for fine PM and setting secondary standards identical to the primary ones.
- Three groups of petitioners—environmental organizations led by the American Lung Association, several states, and industry associations—filed petitions for review of the EPA's final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit consolidated the various petitions for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Environmental Protection Agency act arbitrarily and capriciously under the Clean Air Act when it retains an existing primary annual air quality standard for fine particulate matter without adequately explaining why the standard protects public health with an adequate margin of safety, particularly in light of scientific evidence of harm from short-term exposures and to vulnerable populations?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to retain the primary annual standard for fine particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide an adequate explanation for its conclusion. The EPA must reasonably explain why its standard is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Here, the EPA failed on two key grounds: 1) it did not adequately explain why it disregarded scientific studies showing adverse health effects from short-term PM exposures when setting the annual standard, representing an unexplained departure from its prior position and the advice of its own experts; and 2) it failed to explain how the 15 µg/m³ standard protects vulnerable subpopulations, such as children, from morbidity, improperly discounting studies showing harm below that level. Furthermore, the court found the secondary NAAQS unlawful because the EPA failed to first define the level of visibility protection 'requisite to protect the public welfare,' as statutorily required, before concluding that the primary standards were sufficient.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'hard look' doctrine of administrative law, under which courts closely scrutinize the reasoning of agency rulemaking, especially on complex scientific matters. It establishes that an agency cannot simply dismiss the recommendations of its own scientific advisory panels without a thorough and persuasive explanation. The ruling clarifies that the 'adequate margin of safety' provision in the Clean Air Act requires a specific analysis of risks to vulnerable populations, not just the general public. For future environmental regulations, this case heightens the burden on the EPA to justify its standards by rationally connecting its policy choices to all available scientific evidence.
Unlock the full brief for American Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection Agency