795 F.3d 1
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- EPA challenged 2012 rule revising hexavalent chromium emissions standards under Clean Air Act §112(d)(2)-(3) and phasing out PFOS-based fume suppressants.
- Environmental petitioners argue the rule is too lax because EPA ignored data and improperly weighed costs; the Association argues it is too stringent and failed to base revisions on required developments.
- Rule builds on prior MACT floor concept by moving beyond current practice through a technology review and a risk review conducted within eight years of initial promulgation.
- Compliance historically allowed by surface-tension measurements; 2012 rule emphasizes controlling surface tension via non-PFOS suppressants and enclosure/control technologies.
- EPA justified revisions using new data, developments in control technologies, and a risk assessment that considered costs, feasibility, and margin of safety.
- Court applies Chevron deference and upholds EPA’s determinations, denying petitions and sustaining the Final Rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new MACT floor was required on technology-review revision | Environmental petitioners argue a new MACT floor must be set when revising standards via §112(d)(6). | EPA contends no new MACT floor is required if revision is justified by developments and does not compel a start-from-scratch floor. | Not required; EPA can revise without a new MACT floor when justified. |
| Whether EPA properly considered California data in revisions | Petitioners claim EPA ignored California’s stricter controls in national analysis. | EPA used California data selectively for California estimates and avoided distorting nationwide results. | EPA reasonably incorporated California data without distorting national analyses. |
| Whether EPA properly identified developments and tied revisions to them | Association says EPA failed to specify which developments warranted revision and how they were linked to revised standards. | EPA identified several technologies and explained costs and reductions; need not link each development to a distinct revision. | EPA reasonably identified developments and linked them to revisions without requiring a one-to-one nexus. |
| Whether EPA’s PFOS phase-out and risk/rulemaking analyses were reasonable | Association contends insufficient empirical support that non-PFOS suppressants achieve emissions limits; data gaps alleged. | Relationship between surface tension and emissions is independent of suppressant identity; Minnesota data supports non-PFOS viability. | Phase-out reasonable; data and methodology adequately support the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (MACT floor and technology-based revisions analyzed)
- National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation and agency deference under 112)
- Ass’n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (technology review and standards revision under §112(d)(6))
- Int’l Fabricare Inst. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (scope of agency decision-making under environmental statutes)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (data adequacy and deference in environmental rulemaking)
- White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (agency interpretation and Chevron-related considerations; data handling)