American Forest & Paper Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
352 U.S. App. D.C. 315, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20744, 294 F.3d 113 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Air Act, a petitioner seeking to delist a hazardous air pollutant bears the burden of making an affirmative showing with adequate data that the substance may not reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse health effects. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) denial of such a petition will be upheld if it is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, with courts affording the agency's scientific and technical judgments an extreme degree of deference.
Facts:
- In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress included methanol on the statutory list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
- The American Forest and Paper Association, Inc. (Association), a trade group for industries that release methanol, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March 1996 to remove methanol from the HAP list.
- The Association submitted scientific evidence, including a study on mice (the Rogers Study), to support its claim that methanol exposure does not cause adverse human health effects.
- Based on its analysis, the Association proposed a 'safe exposure level' (SEL) of 83 mg/m3 and asserted that the highest predicted real-world exposure was only 3.65 mg/m3.
- Subsequently, a new study on primates (the Burbacher Study) was published, which the Association also submitted, arguing it further supported delisting methanol.
- The Burbacher Study observed several potential adverse effects in primates exposed to methanol, including decreased gestation time, increased need for caesarian-section births, and developmental delays in offspring.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Forest and Paper Association, Inc. submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an administrative agency, to delist methanol as a hazardous air pollutant.
- The Association supplemented its petition with additional scientific studies and data.
- On May 2, 2001, the EPA issued a final agency action in the form of a published notice denying the Association's petition.
- The Association, as petitioner, sought review of the EPA's denial in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Environmental Protection Agency act arbitrarily, capriciously, or not in accordance with the law when it denied a petition to remove methanol from the Clean Air Act's list of hazardous air pollutants because the petitioner failed to show there was adequate data to determine methanol exposure may not reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse health effects?
Opinions:
Majority - Henderson
No. The Environmental Protection Agency's denial of the petition to delist methanol was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because the agency reasonably concluded the petitioner failed to meet its statutory burden. The Clean Air Act unambiguously places the burden on the petitioner to affirmatively show with 'adequate data' that a substance 'may not reasonably be anticipated to cause' adverse effects. The court gives extreme deference to the EPA's technical expertise, and the agency's scientific determinations were reasonable. Specifically, the EPA's decision to use the Benchmark Dose (BMD) methodology over the petitioner's preferred model was a valid exercise of its scientific judgment, as the BMD model is well-recognized and superior. Furthermore, the EPA reasonably interpreted the Burbacher primate study as indicating potential adverse reproductive and developmental effects, which supported its conclusion that the Association had not met its heavy burden to prove methanol's safety.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant statutory burden placed upon petitioners seeking to delist substances that Congress has designated as hazardous air pollutants. It solidifies that the burden is not on the EPA to prove harm, but on the petitioner to affirmatively prove safety. The ruling also underscores the principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies in matters of scientific and technical expertise, making it difficult for regulated parties to successfully challenge the EPA's choice of scientific models or its interpretation of complex data. This precedent strengthens the EPA's hand in maintaining the list of hazardous pollutants against industry challenges.
