Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency
604 F.3d 613 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, courts will defer to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific judgments in setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act, provided the agency bases its decision on substantial evidence in the record and provides a reasoned explanation for its policy choices, including protecting sensitive subpopulations.
Facts:
- In 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for lead at 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³), intended to prevent most children's blood lead levels from exceeding 30 µg/dL.
- Over the following decades, scientific studies demonstrated that lead exposure caused adverse neurocognitive effects, such as IQ loss, in children at blood lead levels well below 10 µg/dL.
- In 2004, the EPA initiated a review of the lead NAAQS, considering approximately 6,000 studies and concluding that there was no recognized safe level of lead in children's blood.
- The EPA developed an 'evidence-based framework' to revise the standard, shifting its focus from a target blood lead level to preventing a specific magnitude of air-related IQ loss in children.
- Using this framework, the EPA analyzed the relationship between air lead, blood lead, and IQ loss, relying on a selection of recent studies involving children with low blood lead levels.
- Based on its analysis and recommendations from its scientific advisory committee, the EPA determined that a standard was needed to prevent an average population IQ loss of more than two points.
- In 2008, the EPA published a final rule revising the primary NAAQS for lead to 0.15 µg/m³ averaged over a rolling three-month period.
- The Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association and the Doe Run Resources Corporation, whose industries involve lead, opposed the stringency and methodology of the new rule.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a notice-and-comment rulemaking process to review and revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead.
- On November 12, 2008, the EPA published its final rule, significantly strengthening the lead NAAQS.
- The Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association and the Doe Run Resources Corporation (petitioners) filed petitions for review of the final rule 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:
Is the EPA's final rule revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead arbitrary and capricious, where the agency based the new standard on preventing IQ loss in children, selected specific scientific studies to support its conclusions, and set the standard as a three-month rolling average?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers
No, the EPA's final rule is not arbitrary and capricious. The agency is statutorily mandated to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, which includes protecting sensitive subpopulations like children. The EPA provided a reasoned explanation, based on substantial new scientific evidence, for shifting its focus from blood lead levels to preventing IQ decrements, as science no longer recognizes a safe blood lead level. The court found that the EPA reasonably selected scientific studies of children with blood lead levels most comparable to today's U.S. population, given the evidence that the harm from lead is greater at lower exposure levels. Furthermore, the decision to set the 0.15 µg/m³ standard with a three-month rolling average was not an error but was based on different sets of scientific evidence, and the EPA was not required to obtain and publicize the raw data underlying the studies on which it relied.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the substantial deference courts grant to the EPA's technical and scientific judgments in setting air quality standards. By upholding the agency's focus on protecting the most sensitive subpopulations (children) and its reliance on an evidence-based framework even amidst scientific uncertainty, the ruling strengthens the EPA's authority to issue stringent, health-based regulations under the Clean Air Act. The case clarifies that an agency can change its regulatory approach in response to evolving science without being deemed arbitrary and capricious. This precedent makes it more difficult for industry petitioners to successfully challenge complex environmental regulations by merely pointing to scientific debates or alternative methodologies.
Unlock the full brief for Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency