National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Environmental Protection Agency
401 U.S. App. D.C. 227
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- EPA's 2008 Renovation Rule included an opt-out exemption for owner-occupied target housing where no pregnant women or children under six lived.
- EPA later amended the rule in 2010 to remove the opt-out provision, aiming to more fully protect vulnerable populations.
- NAHB and other trade associations petition for review challenging the Amended Renovation Rule as arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- NAHB also challenged EPA's failure to convene a small business advocacy review panel under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
- The court held that EPA's change of course was permissible under Fox and State Farm standards, and that the RFA challenge is jurisdictionally barred.
- The petition for review was denied in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removing the opt-out was arbitrary and capricious. | NAHB argues the change lacks justification and relies on old arguments. | EPA provided a reasoned, permissible justification under TSCA to rely on reevaluation. | Denied; EPA's change was not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether EPA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act by not convening a small business panel. | NAHB contends failure to convene panel violates the RFA. | RFA review of panel convening is not judicially reviewable; panel not required here. | Denied; court lacks jurisdiction to review panel convening under the RFA. |
Key Cases Cited
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (no heightened standard required for all agency change under APA)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. needs, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (reasoned explanation required for policy changes; changes permissible with good reasons)
- City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (cost-benefit analyses within agency discretion; not de novo review)
- Allied Local & Regional Manufacturers Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional limits on reviewing RFA panel compliance)
- National Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (cost-benefit analysis review is deferential; not de novo)
- American Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 387 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1967) (agency discretion in policy reconsideration and statutory interpretation)
- Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (range of factors in determining public interest and policy change)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1978) (notice-and-comment requirements as the maximum procedural rule)