New York v. Reilly
297 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21306, 969 F.2d 1147 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Air Act, an administrative agency has discretion to determine the 'best demonstrated technology' by balancing air quality benefits against non-air impacts and costs, and its decision to withdraw a proposed regulation will be upheld if supported by a reasoned explanation based on evidence in the administrative record.
Facts:
- The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set emission standards for municipal waste combustors (incinerators) that reflect the 'best demonstrated technology' (BDT), considering costs and other environmental impacts.
- In December 1989, the EPA proposed new rules for incinerators under this authority.
- The proposed rules included a provision requiring operators to separate and remove 25% of certain recyclable materials (paper, metals, glass, etc.) from their waste stream before incineration.
- The proposed rules also included a provision that would place a total prohibition on the incineration of lead-acid vehicle batteries.
- After the public comment period, the EPA's final rule package was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and subsequently to the President’s Council on Competitiveness for review.
- The Council on Competitiveness objected to the materials separation provision, citing an unfavorable cost-benefit analysis and principles of federalism.
- In 1991, the EPA promulgated its final rules, omitting both the 25% materials separation requirement and the lead-acid battery ban that had been in the proposed version.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New York, the State of Florida, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Petitioners) filed petitions for review of a final agency rule.
- The petitions were filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The petitions challenged the final rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (Respondent) regulating emissions from municipal waste combustors.
- Petitioners claimed the EPA's decision to omit the proposed materials separation and battery ban provisions was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law.
- Several industry and governmental groups intervened in support of the EPA's final rule.
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 and capriciously by omitting from its final regulations for municipal waste combustors a proposed requirement for 25% materials separation and a proposed ban on lead-acid battery incineration?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson
No, as to the materials separation requirement; Yes, as to the lead-acid battery ban. The EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in omitting the materials separation requirement because it provided a reasoned explanation for its change in position, but it did act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately explain its decision to omit the battery ban. Regarding the materials separation rule, the court found that the EPA acted within its discretion. The Clean Air Act allows the agency to balance air-quality benefits with non-air factors, including economic costs. The administrative record, including public comments, provided sufficient evidence to support the EPA's revised conclusion that the costs and economic benefits of mandatory separation were highly uncertain, and that the air-quality benefits were 'relatively small' due to the effectiveness of modern pollution control devices. The court held that political influence from the Council on Competitiveness did not invalidate the rule, as the EPA still exercised its own expertise and provided a rational basis for its final decision. Regarding the lead-acid battery ban, the court found the EPA's reasoning to be inadequate. The EPA's three justifications—(1) the difficulty of achieving 100% compliance, (2) the existence of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and (3) a potential future rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act—were insufficient. The court reasoned that difficulty with 100% compliance did not preclude a less stringent standard (e.g., 99% or a 'best efforts' standard), which would have been a 'logical outgrowth' of the proposal. Furthermore, the existence of other statutes is not a valid reason to abandon a determination of BDT under the Clean Air Act without explaining why the ban, despite its acknowledged air benefits, was not the BDT. The court therefore remanded this portion of the rule to the EPA for more reasoned decisionmaking.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies the 'hard look' doctrine of administrative review, where courts scrutinize an agency's reasoning but remain deferential to its technical expertise. It affirms that an agency is free to change its position from a proposed rule to a final rule, provided it supplies a reasoned explanation supported by the record. The case also clarifies that political influence from other executive branch bodies is permissible as long as the agency ultimately bases its decision on its own expertise and statutory mandate. Finally, the court's use of the 'logical outgrowth' doctrine reinforces that agencies have flexibility in rulemaking and are not confined to an all-or-nothing choice presented in a proposed rule.
