Environmental Law
824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en banc)
Study notes for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA (the Benzene NESHAP case): professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The EPA's two-step approach to establishing hazardous air pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act is a permissible interpretation, but must be supported by adequate justification for specific regulatory choices.
In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, the court focused on the interpretation of the Clean Air Act's mandate regarding the protection of public health through the establishment of hazardous air pollutant standards. A key emphasis was the two-step approach taken by the EPA in determining an 'ample margin of safety,' which involves initially setting an acceptable risk level before adjusting for safety margins informed by feasibility factors. Professors would highlight how this case illustrates the tension between public health imperatives and regulatory feasibility, as well as the importance of the Chevron deference in administrative law, which gives agencies broad authority to interpret statutes within their purview.
The decision also reinforced the need for agencies to substantiate their regulatory choices with a solid administrative record, raising important questions about the degree to which feasibility considerations can influence health-based standards. Notably, the remand of parts of the benzene NESHAP signals judicial insistence on rigorous justification for regulatory decisions affecting public health and safety.
Benzene's Balance: Risk first, then Safety, but justify all.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | Chevron involved the broader principle of agency interpretation of statutes, while the Benzene NESHAP case focused specifically on the application of these principles in the context of public health standards. |
| Union Electric Co. v. EPA | Union Electric centered on the enforcement of the Clean Air Act's general requirements, whereas the Benzene case addressed the EPA's regulatory flexibility and the specific justification of its choices under a health risk paradigm. |
| American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA | American Trucking dealt with the EPA's authority to set standards based on scientific criteria, in contrast to the Benzene case, which concerned the adequacy of the EPA's rationale for its standards and the consideration of safety margins. |
Permitting the EPA to consider feasibility in establishing health standards allows for the realistic implementation of regulations, which can lead to more effective public health outcomes.
Balancing feasibility with health protection may dilute the stringency of public health standards and potentially compromise the agency's mandate to protect public health.
On exams, this case is likely to be used as a vehicle to test understanding of administrative law principles, particularly Chevron deference, and the interaction of public health policy with regulatory feasibility.