Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Court Invalidates in Part and Upholds in Part Revised EPA Air Quality Standards

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In American Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 559 F.3d 512, 2009 WL 437050 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) revised air quality standards with respect to particulate matter because the agency had failed to adequately consider certain significant aspects, but upheld the EPA's standards for coarse particulate matter.

Background

Plaintiffs petitioned the court for review of the EPA's revised air quality standards for regulation of particulate matter. Id. at *5.

Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that the EPA's revised standards were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Id. at *6.

Analysis and Holdings

The court reviewed the EPA's actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9) to determine whether they were "(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; or (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations." Id. at *5. The court explained that "[a]n agency's failure adequately to consider a relevant and significant aspect of a problem may render its rulemaking arbitrary and capricious." Id. at *6. In setting its particulate matter standards, the EPA had relied exclusively upon studies of long-term exposure, and had intentionally failed to consider the effects of short-term exposures, despite expert recommendations that it do so. Id. The court concluded that the EPA had failed to adequately explain why its standards were sufficient "to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety," and remanded the annual particulate matter standards to the EPA for further consideration. Id. at *10. The court also found reasons to doubt the EPA's conclusion that the annual standards would provide an adequate margin of safety against morbidity in children, and it remanded that issue for review as well. Id. at *11-12. However, the court did find that the EPA's act of disregarding a long-term risk assessment in favor of other studies was not arbitrary or capricious because the EPA had reasonably analyzed the assessment. Id. at *14.

The court further held that the EPA's standard for fine particulate matter, which affects visibility, was invalid as it was contrary to the Clean Air Act and lacked a reasonable basis, and remanded that issue for reconsideration. Id. at *16-17. It also concluded that the EPA's decision to have a single standard for coarse particle matter rather than distinguish between urban and non-urban coarse particle matter was reasonable, and upheld the coarse particulate matter standards. Id. at *20-24. Lastly, the court held that the EPA's determination that an annual coarse particulate matter standard was unnecessary was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Id. at *24-25.

The case was decided on February 24, 2009.