US Supreme Court Briefs

No. 99-1426



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ETAL.,
Petitioners,
V.


CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ETAL.,
Respondents,
BRIEF OF STATES OF OHIO, MICHIGAN, AND WEST


VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-PETITIONERS


Filed July 21, 2000


This is a replacement cover page for the above referenced brief filed at the I U.S. Supreme Court. Original cover could not be legibly photocopied I


QUESTION PRESENTED


Whether the Clean Air Act requires that the Divi ronmenlal Protection Agency must, in setting national air quality standards, ignore all tactors "other than health effects relating to poi I utants in the air,'' given that consideration ol SLich factors wo1il(l permit both the Agency and reviewing courts to avoid con fronli tig constitutional nondelegat ion issues.


Ii


'FABLE OF ('()N~IENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES in
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF ARGIJMEN' 3
ARGUMEN' 4
A. The Court Should Avoid Consideration of
the Nondelegat ion Issue by Interpreting
Sect ion 109 to Al low EPA to Consider
1'act( ws Ot her Than t)i icci Public I heal ili
Effects When Setting A National Ambient
Air Quality Standard 4
B. The Language and the Legislative I listory
of Section 109, as well as Principles of
Adini,iist rat ive Policy, Support the
Consideration of Costs and Other [actors
Besides Direct Public Health Effects in
Setting a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard 10
,v)
CONCLUSION


iii

'I'ABLF 01' ALJ'I'HORI'I'IFS - Continued
Page

CASES

A ,,J(ri( an I~e,'rolemn (nsf. v. ('osile.
665 F.2d 1176(D.C.Cir. 1981) 14
Amerit an Petioleimi Inst v. US. EPA,
52 [3d 1113 (I).C. Cir. 1995) 14
A no iii an (ito /. un,' Ass' ns v. EI'A
175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) passian
Chevron U.S.A. i'. NI~'I)C,
467 U.S. 837(1984) 9. hO. 16.21
En ii,ounwnud I)eA,,sc Iwo/i. EPA.
598 lK2d 62 (D.C. Cii'. 1978) IS. 20
Er!, 'vi C vip. i. 115. EPA,
SI [3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1995) 14, 19
(hor,i~e F. Wu,,en ('vip. v. U.S. EPA.
159 [.3(1 616 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13
(hum': i. (Ii,io'd ,S'tau's.
19() U.S. 858 (1989) 4
(;i~iiid ('an von Au 1(1111 (va/awn i. FAA.
154 [3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13
i/neon Pori/and C ('nW/it Co. v. i)ciroii,
362 U.S. 440(1960) I
I/utCJnatiOiiOl I liii~n v. OS/IA
938 F.2d 1310 (t).C. Cir. 1991) 19
I,'a~I I,uI,,st,i,'s AsY n. i. U.S. EPA.
647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980) passim
NIi hj~'a,, l)ep~'nrnwni of Lni'iuu,nn'nud Qnalirv i'. EPA 200() U .S. App. LIX IS 3209
D.C. Cir. 2000) 14. IS
Narunil I?eson,rcx I)efr,,sc Coniwil i. U.S. EPA.
902 E.2d 962 (I).C. Cir. 1990) 14
National Ih'sounres l)eh'nsc ( onn,iI i. (IS. EPA.
937 IK2d 641 (1).C. Cir. 1991) 13
iv

TABI ~E 01' AIJTH0RITIFS - (ontinued
Page


Natinul Resources I)eA',,st-' Council i. U.S. EI~A.
824 E.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (1/liOn IJC(Iii(' Cu. v. 11.5. EPA.
427 U.S. 246(1976) 14



STATUTES

Clean Air Act 101:
I
42 U.S.C. 7401
Clean Air Act 107:
1
42 U.S.C. 7407 -
Clean Air Act 108:
42 U.S.C. 7408 2. II
Clean Air Act 108(a)(2):
42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2) II
Clean Air Act I 08( a)( 2 )( A )( B):
42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2)(A)-(B) II
Clean Air Act 108(b):
42 U.S.C. 7408(b) 7, 8, II
Clean Air Act I 08(b)( 1):
42 U.S.C. 7408(b)(l) 11.12
Clean Air Act I 08(b)(2):
42 U.S.C. 7408(b)(2) 12
Clean Air Act, 109:
42 U.S.C. 7409 passlm
Clean Air Act. 109(b):
42 U.S.C. 7409(b) IS. 16
Clean Air Act, I 09(b)( I ):
42 U.S.C. 7409(b)( I ) 10. II





v
vi
'lABI .E 01' AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

('lean Air Act. 109(d):
42 I. I.S.C. 7409(d) IS Clean Air Act. I 09( (I )( 2 g A):
42 U.S.C. 7109d)(2)(A) IS ('lean Air Act. 109(d)(2)(C)(iv):
42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2)(C)(iv) IS Clean Air Act. 110:
42 U.S.C. 7410 2.8 ('lean Air Act I l0(a)( I):
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)( I) 8 ('lean Air Act I I0(a82)(A):
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A) 8 Clean Air Act 112:
42 U.S.C. 7412 12. IS



HI )[R Al~ RE( lS'l'ER
62 Fed. Re~'. at 38.652 (1997) 19
62 FeI. Ret,'. at 38,856 (1997) 20
62 Fed. keg. at 38,863/3 (1Q97) 9
62 Fed. Rei.~. at 38.867 (1997) 20
62 Fed. Rn.,'. at 38,883/2 (1997) 6
62 Fed. Re~,'. at 38.688 (1997) 19
'I'ABLE 01' AIJTHORIlIES - (ontinued
Page

M ISCELLANFOLJS

Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air
Pollution. 91st Cong. 160 (1970) 17

Breyer, l3,eakin~4 11w ~u'ious ('ircl' 112 I (I larvard
University Press 1993) 6

Committee on Interstate at id Foreign Commerce. Repoif. 127 (May 12, 1977)
(emphasis supplied) 17

Congressional Research Set-vice of the Library of Congress fot~ the Cotnut ittee on Environment an(l Public Works. U.S. Senate, A Levislaii'e history of ilw ('lea,, Air Act Anu'ndn,enis of
1990. 5683(1993) 18

Stepheti Ci. Breyer. Richi~~rd B. Steward. ('ass R. Sitnstein & Matthew L. S itzer. Adn,inis,vralive Lan' & Re~,'nla1orv Policy 65 (4th ed. 1999) 18

Wendy Wagner. ihe Science C'I,a,ade in Toxic Risk Re~uIauion. 95 Cohum. L. Rev. 161 3
(Nov. 1995) 19





IN'I'RODUJC'I'ION

The States of Ohio, Mclii eati ati~ I West Virginia (''Supporting States''), along w ithi a num be r ot ot her patties. challenged the I 997 revisions to the national am bient air (httal ity statidards for 0/one and part icu I ate matter issued utider sectioti 109 of the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agertcy (''EPA''). The District of Columbia Cit'cuit agreed with the challengers that EPA had not articulated an "intel I igi ble pinci pIe" for its revisions. and t'emanded the case to the agency to do so. Anu'rican Irucking Ass'ns i'. EPA. 175 E.3d 1027. 1034-40 (l).C. Cir. 1999). 1-fowever, the lowet' coitrt. based on flawed precedent in the Cit'cuit. also held that the Adtnin ist tator of EPA is itnable to consider any lactor other than (Ii t'ect pit1~l ic health efl'ects when sett itig or revising a standat'd under sect iort 109, Id. at I 04041 . The Sttpport itig States (Ipposed EPA's
Pet it ion for certiorari (No. 99 1 257) atid sit ppot'ted the conch it ional crosspetit ion for cett iot'ari of the Amertcan Truckitig Associatiotis (No. 99-1426), both of which wet'e granted. The Support i rtg States subni it this brief in sttpport of cross-petitioners Americati Trrtcking Associations in Case
No. 99- 1426.

The t'egu hat ion ol' public heal t Ii and the en vi t'ontnent ts of mani test impot'tance to the Suppot'ting States. Long before fedet'ah legislation for air pollutioti contt'ols. the Coitrt acknowledged the States' responsibility to tise their police
I~wers to combat air pol hut ion. "Legislat oti designed to free ft'om poll itt ion the Vety air that people breathe clearly l~tl Is within the exet'ci se ol' even the most tradit iotial concept of what is competidiottsly known as the police power. lliiron Poit land Lenient Co. i'. Detroit, 362 U.S. 440, 442 (I 960).




Ohio did viol opposc celtior;iri on tic tij'st question presented iii kt~A's pet it Oil.


3
[he Supporting States rtot on I y acknowledge, bitt em btace their responsi lii I ity to ensute public health and a sa he env i rotitnent . The S ttppott itig St ates stt ppott e Hotis to protitote a healthy enviroutnent and control air pollution, and there lore sttpp )rt the gerteral goals atid policies etitbocl icci in the Cheart Air Act. The Supporting States also support the policy' that cotisideratioti of pttbh ic health is the ptimaty considerat ion itt set t i tig and i mpletnetit i ng a it startdards.

Cott~ress~s passage of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 740 I a seq. ( '~Ci A'~ w '1 he Act''), est abl i shed a federal state
part tiershi i p br control Ii ug air po1 I ut ion, but coti Ii rmc(1 that the States maintain primary respotisibil ity for ertsut~irtg that clean air is ~tchievcd. Specifically, whi he EPA is respotisible tot sett ittg attd periodically revisittg ait qitality standards itt tder sect i itis 108 at td I 09. t lie States are respottsi ble br adopt itig attd ettborcitig att ittipletnentatioti plan that will assure that t I te statidards arc met it tider sect ions 107 and I hO.
CAA 107. 108, 109, I hO: 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7408, 7409. 7410.

I PA's decisions itt this case, as well as the lower coitrt s i ttterptetat joti )f sect iott 109 of the C lean Air Act, upset this federalstate partnership. The District oh Columbia ('ircitit. lollowitig a line of cases startittg with Leatl Industries Ass'n i. U.S. EPA. 647 E.2d I I 30 (D.C. Cir. 1980). held that EPA is bereft of cI iscretion to consider the social, econotn ic att(l eti vi rorttnerttal costs (If a tiat iottah autbietti air chital i ty startclard it ticler sect ion I 09: EPA cart cotisider (ml y the direct public health conseqitences of the pat cctlar pollutatit. This ititerpretatioti can and does tesuht itt EPA sett irtg urtreah ist ic startdards withoitt cotisidering ttit tiletoits ot her ldctors. i tiel itch i ttg the cost ol i tnpletitetitatiott, direct and itidi rect ellects on the econotny such as higher costs br etie rg~'. and evert the adverse heal th e ffects of a lower attloittit oh the pollutatit. Itt addition. ttrtcler EPA's
te t~ptet at i oti , it cat set a st an chard wit Ii oit t a spec iii c explanation ot the standard 's health benefits.

The States are theti left to enforce an unjitst i tied standard that tnay be impossible to i mpletitent . S itch art unreasortable interpretatioti, when appl iecl to a nonthreshold pollutant, would effect art itttconstititt iotiah chehegat ion of legislative power. ~'e 175 E.3d at 1033.

The St.tpport i ng St ates there fore sitbtti it t It is brief to t~espect fit II y rechitest that the Court affi rinat i vel y resolve the stat ittory issue by holchi tig that EPA cati ati(l short 1(1 cotisider costs as well as betiefi ts whert sett itig or revisi no a ttat onal anibietit air qt.tahity startdard tinder sectioti 109. Not ottly will this ititerpretat iott avoi(l a potetitial constitutional issite, it also is a reasonable i nterptetat ion (If bot hi the language artd the legislative hi story of t lie Clean Air Act. Irt add it iort. the EPA cart only make sound regulatory decisions, which the States ate expected to i tnphetiiettt, whieti all factors regarchi rtg a proposed statidarch are takett i tito account.

SUMMARY OF AR(dJMEN'I'

Industry patties have devoted approx itnatchy 100 jmges of detai led analysis of thie issues itt this case. The Sttpportittg States do tiot reiterate all of t [tat anal ys is here, but submit this brief to presetit argt.tmetits tiiost relevant to the States. Irt acId it ioti. rather thatt repeat the factual account and background adequately covered elsewhiete, t lie S u pporti tig States hereby adopt the Statement of thte Case of the Aniericati Truckitig Associatiotis' brief itt this case.

The Support ittg States subniit this brief to make two tnain poitits. Eirst. EPA's attd the lower coitrts ttiterpretation of sect ioti 109 creates sigtt i ficant problems for the States. EPA's failure to cortsider factors other thiatt direct public health effects iti settitig art ait dlital ity statidlardl tiiay





4
5
redhitite St.ttes to meet art utijustifiech standaril that is ititpossibhe to itttpletnettt using ''enforceable'' control me a sit res.

Second. the I atigitage atich legislative hi story of the Clean Air Act, as well as sound achm in ist rat i ye jitchgtnertt, it tdh icate that att i ttterpretat ion of sect ion I 09 of the Act that allows EPA to c tttsider factors othter than cli rect pitbh ic heal thi effects of a rtortt h reshiold pollutant is reasotiable. EPA's titerpretat ion is ittireasottable because it ptex'e~s the cottstcheratiott (if ttotipitbhic health factors, bt.tt allows EPA uti fettered cli scret ott to set the startchard xvi tlioitt ati intelligible basis.

A R( I. NI FN' I'

A. ~h~he Court Should Avoid Consideration ot the
Nondelegatioti IssLte by I niet-preting Section I ~9 to
Allow EPA to Consider Factors Other '['han l)irect
Public health Effects When Setting A National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.

This Coitrt has niade clear (In tiunierocts occastotis Itat it is ''sett lCdl policy to avoid an i titerpretat ion of a federal stat it te that engenders cotist itctt ionah issues if a reasonable alternative i ttterpret at ion poses no cotisti t ittiortal dhitest ioti.'' (;on,e: t. United States, 49() U.S. 858, 864 (1989). Iti this case, a correct interpretation of section 109 will avoid a I t )get her the rteecl to reach t lie tiortdhehegat ion issue raised by the lower cottN. l'lie Sitpport ing States therefore respectfully teqitest that this Coitrt affirmatively avoid the cotist itutional isstte, affirm the lower court s finding that EPA has fai led to artiettlate intelligible pritteiphes for sehectitig standards hot
0/otte and part ic~it hate titatter. atith allow EPA ott rettiatill to consider costs and ot her rtorth teal tht factors itt adopting those tntel I igi ble prittciphes.

The District of Colitnibia Circitit Court of Appeals cotTectly foitndh that EPA has failed to find an "intelligible prirtci pIe'' for selecting a standard for ozone and fine
part icuhates. I 75 [.3d at I 034. It therefore correctly remanded the revised standard to EPA ''to give t Ite agertey art oppot~t tin it y to ext tact a deteriti i rtate standard (itt its owtt. 1 75 E.3ch at I 038. However, in so (hoitig, the coit rt acted as if constraitiech by Lead industries atidI its progetty to deny EPA lie otie tool t Itat woct Id most Itel p itt selecting art air p~11 ctt iott stattdard: the cotisitherat iott of costs and other itonItealihi facti)ts.

Ozone attd fine part icti hates at~e "ttotit It resltold''

Poll ittants: that is. tItere is no threshtold amoitnt. above whi ich the heterioits health effects ate certai rt. antI be how wIt cIt rto heahilt effects ate kitown. As the lower court stated, "EPA regards oiotte che finitely, attd patt icit hate ttiatter I likely, as ttottt It reshold Pollutants, ir. Ones that have sortie possibility of sotiie advet~se hicalfli irtipact (however sI iglit ) at arty expositre level above zeto." I 75 hK3ch at I 034, citittg Ozorte Final Rithe. 62 Fed. Reg. at 38863/3 (I 997) .See also Natinal Resources I)e/~'n.w ('oniwil v. 11.5. EPA, 824 F.2c1 1146, 1148 ( L).C. Ci r. I 987) ('1 'in vi C'hlo,ide'' ) (a ''tiotttli tesltolil''
Poll utattt is otie that "appeats to create a risk to health at all tiotizer() levels of ernissiott"). Cf Lead Industries, 647 F.2ch at 11374 I (chiscttssing varioits thresholds for leach expositre ttsed to sitpport tlte statidard for head). The court below also totech that "the only cotteent rat ioti fJ for ozone ... t [tat is





6
7
itt teth y risk free. in t lie settse of direct heal th i tnpacts. is zet(i. I 75 h.3ch at I 034. 2

itt thte absence of a health threshold for a polhtttatit such as 0/titte. it is [kit sitrptisittg thtat FI~A Itas difficulty articttlating an ''itttehligibhe priticiphe' based ott hteahth alone for its ozotie stattchard, as any presence of the pohhutartt is assittnctl to presettt some threat to health. Without ilte ability to cotts (her Sottte other factor, only one logical result is possible if sect iott 109 is ieacl to protect agaittst any threat to healt hi: EPA ttittst set thte standard for a ttottt Itresholcl P01 htttattt at zero.

I however, tat her than sett i ttg t lie standard at zero, EPA chooses to ittterpret sect iott 109 to allow thte Aclttt itt i st tab ir essentially urtbounchech cli scret iott t (i select atty level oh ptotectioti hot a ttonthtreshiolcl pollutant, without att ictthatittg a prittciphel reasott hot doitig so. Ahthoitgh EPA states reasotts for wIt icht it claims to have chosen thte ozorte st attdatxh. t Itey cotts i st of vague references to ''the natu te attci seven ty~' (if Itealtht effects, "the size of t Ite settstt tve
popit hat iorts at risk,'' attch the "kind attch degree oh uticettaittt ics that tttttst be achtlressed.'' 175 F.3c1 at 103435, citittg Ozotie r7inah Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. at 38,883/2 (1997). These factors do ttot ptov ii.he a pri tic i pled method for dlrawi ttg a I itte idetit i fyittg a level of air chuahity that is ''requisite'' to protect t Ite ''pit bI ic health ." ttor to cletetm i tte ''safety,'' so that att ~~achedh itate margi ti of sa fet y'' catt be estabh i shed. Vinyl C~liloride, 824 F.2c1 at I 16365.


ti IC shti itt ~i itt titmit ~ ii IC It(it (t i edt y at issue in this case tit ~we vet t tie same aigu mcvii '~ pc se I ite~ t tie ic wit t icga itt to itoit t tue stia td pot I titan is may be itiatte t(i S(iiiie extent tot ttireshotct pollutants. Atttt(iugh thteic may be a tea It h based h estin t(t above wt tic hi these ~(i II (it a itt s p~ ise a ii sk. and itiat I tiiestiottt sttonkt be the priltiarv tactor in seit i01( the staiutattt. it is stitt a question whether the c(ist (it ahatitig a certain percentage ot the
pottotant is worth tie risk teittictiovi 'we ~;eyev. t?,eukon~ I/u I 'ic/QuA
i, t~ It 2 I ii taivaiAt t Iniversity Press t 993 .
'[he cli hemtna ptochttcedl by lead Industrie and its progeny, and EPA's stattcharclhess assert tott of authcrity is what heth the 1).C. Ci teit it to i tivoke the noitchehegat ott thoct ti tte, for if EPA thoes i ttcleccl have sitcft boit ttth less discretion, then Cotigress has delegated too tnucht legislative aitthority to an executive agency. I lowever. this Court is not bottncl by the [ead Industries litie of cases. ~hhie correct interpretat ioti of sect ioti I 09 will permit EPA to establish
pri ttci pled teasotts for t he standlanIs set for nottthi reshtolch pd)1 I utant s, thus sett itig boitutlaries for EPA's cli scret ion, atid el im i nat i rig the nott.hehegat ion problem. Rather iltati consicleri ng thte const i tith iottah nonchehegat ion cloct ri tie. the Sitpporting States tespect fith hy redhitest that ilte Cout tt reject the rationale of the Lead Industries I inc of cases, thereby perrti itt i ng EPA to consider factors other tItan cli tect pitbl ic heal th effects whteti set t i tig or rev i sing a stanclatch fcir ati at r pollutant.

EPA s stattdard less assert iott of aitt hon t y creates seriotts probhctns betweeti thte federal government atich the States. Despite EPA's alleged inability to conisidher factors other tItan cli reci pitbh ic health effects, it is reqit irecl to gather and issite to the States infortnation (irt just such faciots when settitig the criteria on which the standards ate based. The States are issued ''intortttat ion ott air pollution cotitrol technidlues," itichudinig ''data relating to the cost of itistal hat ion atici operat ott. ettergy tedfttitetliettt s. em tsstoti reditct ion benefits, and ettv i rontuental impact of t lie em t 55t0t1 cotitrol techinohogy.~' CAA I 08(b): 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Itt addition, the information mitst include data ott ''available technology attd alternative methods of prevent ioti atich cotitrol of air pohhitt ion,'' as well as ''alternative fuels, processes, and operatintg methods." CAA 108(b): 42 U.S.C. 7408(b).

After EPA has set the stanichartl, each State is requited to develop a state i mphetnetttat iott p1 at. (ir SI P for thtat





8 9


pol htttattt . CA A 110: 42 U .S.C. 7410. Specifically, sect iott
110 req it i tes thte States to athopt antI sitbtti it to EPA a p1 art to
ititphetttettt. maintain attd enforce air c~ttahity standards. CAA
I I 0(a) I): 42 U.S.C. 74 I 0( a)( I . According to the Act, the plati is to ''ittchude enforceable ctttissititt litititatiotis and oIlier cottl t(ih measit tes. ttieans or techitt iques ( i ttch itcl i ng econom tc incentives sitcli as tees, marketable permits, antI aitctiorts of ertttsstotts rights), as well as scheclit hes and timetables br cottipl iattce, as ttiay be necessary or appropriate to meet the ah)ph cable edit i tetttettt s of tht is chapter.'' CA A I hO (a)(21(A): 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A).

In practical terms. St ates i ni phetnent federal standards by hi tit it i ttg etn issiotts from ''sottrces, e... mart u fact itring

plants, electric itt if it ics, aittomobi hes. A tnatt it facturi ng plant for e xattiphe. tttay be forced to reduce cmi ssiotts to nteet State
t.ec~tti retnetits by pttrc'hasittg advanced techttology pol hut ioti control edjitiptitetit or reducing its ltot.trs of opetati(itt. Att electric utility, for exatuple. may be forced to reclitee etti iss tt itts by cfiaitgi ttg its fuel sotttce to cleaner burning coal m ported front ottt side the regioti. State (ill icials ntay reduce aittot ti( ibi he ent i ssiotts by imposing em i ssiotis testing on car d)wttets antI forcing eqitipment itpgracles for older tnochchs.

The ent i ssion recluct ions resu Iti ng from the cottt bi ttat it itt of t Itese i ticI iv icl uah control nieasures-i mposed tht tought penn it req it i rements for plants or I icettse recfit i rettient s for car (iwtlerscteate a State's overall st tate g v for i tttphetnetit i rtg the federal standard. In creatittg lii s strategy and mak i tig t lie cli fficu It policy choices atnong possible cotttrol measitres. a State is presumably required t(i cottsider attd itse the in foritiat i(in prov iclecl for it uttcler sect toti 108(b) (itt cotltt(ih techn iqites, costs of instal hat ion attd operatiott. energy reqitirentettts, ettt ission recluciion benefits, andl etiv i rotitttetttah impacts of the em tsstont cotitrol techttiohogy. CAA 108(b) 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Itt achchitiott, It is itt fortitat iott is ptov ichech to the States early in t lie process,
ptestttti~tbly to al 1(1w thettt to patticipate itt thte federal tithe making process.

Utider ihe fedleral governntettt 's ititetpretal ott, EPA coit Id adopt a st attclatcf wit hioitt c(ittsidheri ttg arty tact(ir (it her than cli rect pitbh ic hieahthi effects, and w ithtoitt tec~tt iritig EPA to i niell igi hI y ex phai ti the standard, At the same t i rite. however, the States mttst create the tiveral I schente for meeting the stattclarcl by usi rig ''cit lorceable'' cont rof nteasures and tak i rig technological feasibility, Cost atid ~th I tlte other factors ttiettt iotiecl in sect iott 108(b) i ttto accottttt.

If EPA's interpretat ott ts correct, it is free to know itigl y set a standard for a poll utatit that is ecottotti ical I y impossible for thte States to implement, antI yet is unsitpportecl by art ittteh I igible explanation of why EPA chtew lie hi tie whtere it cI ici. TIte St ates are he ft in att i tttpdissi ble p(isit iortrec~ it i tech to attain the startclatch by a specific dead hi tte, itsi ng ''ett forceable em i ssioti hi nt i tat otis attcl other cd)tttroh ntcasitres, and taking cost and technological feasibility into account, but w ithoitt adhet.luate pubf ic heal thi lust i ficat i tltis.

If atid whett EI~A provides adledfitate public health tist i ficat ion attcl properly takes costs, techtiologicah feasibility antI oilier factors into account wliett setting a nat iotial standard for a pollutant, the federal governitnent cati then art icitl ate att intelligible pri ticiple by wIt ichi the stanchatch is set, and will be, itt effect, takitig respotisibi I ity for its owtt decisions. The effects of techitiohogical feasibility, cost attch (It her factors, as well as the specific h)ttbl ic heal t hi benefits of an air dual ity standard cati be debated opettly with EPA. Atid the standards, and the rationale behind tlietii, will be properly rev iewabhe under the st aitchard an icu latecl in ('hevion U.S.A.
t. NRI)C', 467 U.S. 837 (1984),




I 0 II


~lhis Coittt is ttot bouttch by Lead Imlust,it's. TIte Sitppott itig States tespect fit fly t~equest that the Court resolve lii s case wi thoitt machi i ntg thte ntontclehegat ion doctritie by correctly ittterptetittg sectioti 109 to allow atich redhitire EPA to cottsicher costs attch other factors besides cli rect Pit bI ic healt It effects itt sett i ttg a stattdarcl for oz~tie and other tiont thresh tof(l poll tttatits.

B. ~Ihe Language and the Legislative History of
Section 109. as well as Principles of Administrative
Policy, Support the Consideration of Costs and
Other Factors Besides I)irect Public Health Effects
in Setting a National Atnbient Air Quality
Sta n(i ar(I.

Whtent a coit 0 tev iews a stat ittory i titet~pretat iOti asserted by an executive agenicy. the court mitst atiswer two quest ions. TIte fitst is ''whtet her Cottgress has directly spoken to the precise c1itestiott at isstte. If the intent cif Cottgress is clear. that is the eticl of the tiiatte ('hevron, 467 U.S. at 842. If thte statute is silent or atiibigitotts, the cotttt must cletermitte wItetlter the cottstruct ioti giveti it by the acltn i ti i strati ye agency is "based on a pertti issi ble cotistrttct iou of the statute." id. at 843. Lead Industries was wrongly decided becaitse the most reasonable ititet~pretation of the language of section 109 aticl related sections is tItat EPA has the aitthtority to consider factors other than hteahth whieti set t itig att air standard. And iti aciclit icmnt to the language of he st at ute. the legislative hi story attd general pni nuci pIes of achttt i tti strati ye policy sttpport t lie cortsiclerat iOtt of costs as well as betiefits whtett sett i rug ati air dhttal ity standard.
7409( b)( I). '[ftc I attguage (if sect iott 109, attch pati ict I arh y its ttse (if the tentis ''criteri a'~ and ''tnargi ti of safety.'' i ttcl icates tItat EPA tiiay cottsicler factors othter tItan pitbl ic htcalth itt sett itig a standard ttncler sect ion 109)

E1~A is to set or revise a standard utider sectioti 109 liasecl on "criteria" isst.ted under sectioti I 08. EPA issites the ''criteria'' itt tIte fortti of a cloctttiiettt stttnntarizitig st ttcl ies autch other scientific itifotmation ott the direct pitlil ic hteahthi effects of a particular poll ittattt. Untler sect iott I 08, the criteria ''shah I accurately reflect the latest scietitific knowledge useful iti ituchicating the kiticI antd extettt of all icletiti fiable effects citi public hucalthi or welfare which may be expected frotn thte
presence of sttchi Poll tttattt i ti tIte atubietit air....'' Iti add it ion, the criteria ate to i ticot~porate itt fortrtat ii)tt ott a ntott exch itsive list oil factors. i tich ucli tig ot her factors I Itat itt ighit alter the effects of thue poll utattt ott public healt It and the effect of ot her poll ittants that tii ightt i ttteract to caitse adverse health effects. CAA I 08(a )(2 )( A )( B): 42 U .S.C. 7408(a)(2)( A )( B). The fact that the list iti sect ott 108) a)(2 s nonexclusive at least sttggest s iltat factors othter than ''effects on public health or wel fate'' tiiay be conusicherech whieti issttitig ''criteria'' rtpon which to set or tev tse a statidard.

Bitt eveti tiiote telhittg is the very text subsectiott. 108(b). Simitltaneoushy witht issuatice of the criteria, EPA collects attd issues to the St ates ''i nfortnat iont on air po1 I itt ioti cotttroh technidfues." CAA I 08(b)( I): 42 U .S.C. 7408( b)( It. EPA gathers the itt format ion itt cotisul tat i(mn with aclv isoty cotntitittees and federal clepartntents aticl agettcies. CAA




U tither sect ott 109, "ambient air quality standards'' are set. ''the at tai titnetit and titai tttenance of whi icli in the jttchgtttent of the Adtttitt i st tator. baseth on such criteria aitch allow i tig an adhedhttate margi ii of safety, ate rec~tt i site to protect thue ptthth ic Itealtht.'' CAA 109 ( b)( 1): 42 I. I .S.C.

[or ni~irc exte it si Vc disc ciss ntis it t tie I at guage ot sect it iii 1019 and related sectititis .xcc thief ot Attieticait tiuckitig Associat ntis Aigottietit

part t t A & t~ or ct/ic Btiet of Appatactiiai Power ( otupaity Aigotitettt patt tt A & I~.





12 13


I OX( b)( I): 42 U .S.C. 7408( b)( I). The mt formatioti includes data ott a wide range of factors, i tich itch i itg cost out i tistallat ion antI operat ion. ettergy reii tt i rements. etrt issi(irt reditct ion bettefi t s~ ettv i rottntetitah impacts oif the etnissioiti corttroh techttohogy. a I tetttat ive fitch processes. attcl opetat i ng tiiethocls thtat will result in elimittationt (ir tecluctioti oil enitsstons. CAA I 08(b)( 1): 42 U.S.C. 7408(b)( I). Sectiott 108(b)(2) also ptovicles for thte establ ishtitient oif a stanchitig cottsuhting cottimittee for each pchhutantt. to develop the infortitat ioti iii sectt(iti 108(b)( I). CAA 108(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. 7408(b)(2). It is unlikely that Contgress irttenohech for EPA to gather atid sstte t tifot~tnat i0tt ott factors other tItan cli rect pit bI ic health effects toi aid t lie St ales in implement i ttg a stantdarcl , if they (lid tiot also itttertol for EPA itself to) contsidet~ the intfortiiation itt sen itig thte stattclard.

'[lie itse of thte tertn ''1iitbh ic health'' sttggests that hactots ot lien tItan tited ical effects are to lie considered i ti set t ittg a stattdatd .See Atnericati Tritck irtg Associatiotts Brief, sect iont I h A. In add it iott , t lie use (if tlte hantgitage ''tnargi nt of sa let v'' in sect iott 109 st tottgl y sttggests that fact (its ot lien than heal tli are to) lie c(itisi(lered in settitig a stat tdard . [lie word ''margi ti'' implies that there is a I inte frotn wIt icht t fiat tnatgi tt is ttteasitied. WItett EPA sets a stattclard for a th teshiold poil I ittattt . as it did i ti Lead Industries, that I itte max' lie sttppl iecl hiy the thresliohol itself. (Leach is. our was at the t itite oif lead Industries. coitisiclerecl a thireshtolcl hiolhittant. t Bitt wltere a tionthireshtoild p01 hittatit sitch as oizotte is itticler sctitt itty. tItere is tto principled way. usintg oitthy cli tect htitlil ic lieahtht effects, tot cleternuitie such a I inc. A ''tnatgi tt'' tttitst be titeasti tech frotit sonnet It itig. antd if Itealilt factots ahonte do ttcit sttphih y t lie hi ne, t heti othter factors tit itst.

[his poitit is explored iti Vinyl (~hlo,ide. In Vinyl
( 'blonde, t lie D.C. Ci tcit it held that sect ion 1 I 2. wIt ich
~ EPA t(i set ati ait~ t~tiality startcharth for htazatolous

hi(ihhittat~ts with att ''atitlihe tnargitt (if safety'' to protect thte
pitbh ic healt It. cI ich Itot prech itche a cotisicherat iont cif costs. ~u, 'vI C'hloride, 824 F.2d at 1163. ~in ~'l Chloride suggests that EPA ttiitst make ati itt it iah detertn inatioti oif wltat is ''sa he'' fiased soihehy ott ''t lie risk to health.'' Id. at 1165 although tltis deterttt i nat ititi ''does not teqit i ie a fitid i tig thtat 'safe' niteatis 'risk free.''' omr ftce frottt ttncertai nty. Id. I 'PA is to detettit itie what itt ferences cant lie dtawtt frotn available scienttific data, antd decide what tisks are "acceptable." liotwever, the cottrt gces ott to state that ''by its tiat ute thte fintding (if risk is uticertaiti'' att(h ''at this poittt of the regitlatoiry process ... die Achtttinistrator nntay set the Ctiit55t0ti stantdarch at the lowest level that is technologically feasible." hi. Itt cithier w(itdls, once ''safe'' is detentnitied itsitig direct pitbhic health effects. EPA ttiay ctse techtntological feasibility ( attd ~itesit mabI y otlter factors) to proiv ide the ''tnargitt (if safety.''

In add it iott to Vi,, y/ Chloride. of lien cases hold that ati agentcy can c(ittsiolcr coists if not exptesshy hitechitdhed frotn doitig so by statut(iry language .See (h'otge F. Wa,,en Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 159 F.3d 616. 622-23 (h).C. Cm. I 998 )Otothiing itt text litechitdles EPA's consicherat iott of effects oif proihidisedi nithe oti ilte finice attd supply (if gasoline): Grand ('aii you Au hour C~oaIition i'. IA A, I 54 F.3d 455, 475 (D.C. Ci 1998)(FAA tiiay cotusicler coists, thioiitghi ticit nietit iottech i ti the statute, in p1 ati loin ''sttbstantt iah restoirat ioitt cif the tiatural thitiet): National Resotnees Deft'nse Council '. U.S. EPA, 937 F.2d 641, 645 (D.C. Cm. 1991 )( EPA ntay use costbetiefit attalysis iti determining whietlier fitgit ive dttst frotti coal tri i ties is a ''nuajor'' coinit ribtttor toi ''sigtt i ficatit deteriorat ion'' untoher sect iotts I 60 et seq.). As the D.C. Circitit observed recetitly, "These
itt tlteir octieral vi
cases arc utiexcehitidinal ~. ew t hat pieclusit'n
of cOist coitisicleration requ i tes a rather exptess coitigressiotial
direct ion.'' Mi higan I)ep' t of Enti,o,,n,en~al Qua lily t.





15
14
EPA. 200() U.S. App. LEXIS 3209 at *364() (D.C. Cm. Marcft 3. 2000) ( 'NOx SIP call" )(cmphtasis sitpphied).4

Lead Industries cli rect I y c(ititradh icts thi is poii ttt. L.ea(I hnd,st,ies ItelcI that where Cottgtess chiol tt(it expressly and specifically pr(ivide t(ir consicheraticiti cif coist or other factors, an ageticy tiiay ttoit c(ilisidler thtctii. 647 F.2o1 at 1148. See also National Resources h)efense ('ojincil i'. U.S. EPA. 902 F.2o1 962. 972-73 (I).C. Cm. 1990)(EPA pt~ecludIed frotti ctitisicherittg the Itealtht consec~ttetices (if ittieniphoyttietit in settitig part icit late staticharcl ): American Petroleum Inst. . ('ostle, 665 F.2o1 1176, 1184-85 (D.C. Cm. 1981 )(EPA catirtot coitisicler ataittaliil ity attd cost .iitsti fications for oizoitue statl(latdls ): 1 'inyl Chloride, 824 F.2c1 at 1 15859 (dicta that sect t(itt 109 does ''ttot al hoiw consiclerat iditi oif techintohogical or ec(itiotitic fcasiliility').

~ho be sitte, the coitrts have correctly Itelci that where statittliry language exchttsivehy articulates the factoirs relevant t(i att agency's checisioitt, the agettcy may ttot base its decision (itt (it Iter. irrelevant factors ..See. e.g.. Union Flee. C~o. v. U.S. LiP/I. 427 U.S. 246 (1Q76)) provisioti enutiteratittg eight criteria for c(ittsidlerat iott (I itI tiot ait thiori ze consitlerat iOti (if (ithier criteria): American Petroleum lust. i. (1.5. EPA, 52 F.3d I 11 3, I 119 ( D.C. Cm. 1995) (goal oif ethiartoil market protect ioti may ttot be cotusiclerech itt ~ gat itig regul at ioits itttcler sect ion 2 Il becattse it etiulch ''possibly tttake air qital ity worse ): Ethyl Corp. v. (IS. EPA, SI F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cm. I 995 )( dett iah (ii waiver baseol on heal tht coitisiderat ioitts (rather thiant the stat ittoni I yreqit i red cniterioitt ) foitnicl i tttpermi ssibhe).



ttie S it ppi itt i tig States wee atut in g t til ise wtit i c tia t te ti ge(t hi ~A 's N( ).v 'itt' ccitt rute. tt~As pllsiti(itt iii ttiat ~t5~ is wtittttv iticlitisistetit witti its

is iii itt tie re: t tie te. t PA it ta pptopr ate t y tive tet tiptias i le(t costs at nit isi in thie esctctsitn of ttte ititpact nit air quatity iii itie tetettnutiati''vi 'if sigiti ticatti coititibut (itt.
See also Nox SIP call, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3209, '~t)3 (Setitel he, J., dissent ing).

But where, as here, there is tt(i hangitage art icuhat itig an excl itsi ye list cif relevant factors, atid itti language precl ttd ing the coitisiderat iott (if factoirs ctlten tItan oh rect
pttbh ic health effects, the lead Indusiries ratioitiale titakes little sense. The titatiolate mtt sect ioitt 109(b), "ati adec1uate margi it ol safety,'' is si nt ml an toi "aniple trtargi tt oil safety,'' the language analyzed iti Vinyl C'hloride. The ''adethitate niargiti oif safety'' hatiguage pcrtnits EPA less sciettti lic tincertainty tltatt ''atiiphe ttiargiti of saf~et y.'' Entiromnental Defense hund i. LPA, 598 F.2c1 62, 81 (D.C. Cit~. 1978). Other tliati that. there is tto pnintciphed reason tci chistitigitishi the "tttargiti of safety'' hatiguage in sect iott It )9( Ii) anol itt sect ioitt 112.

Finally, sectiott I 09(cl ), utider which EPA is to review and revise criteria atid staticharcls every five years. reciit i res t lie estabh ishittietit (if an i ncheliendhent sc ictit i fic review conint ittee toi review attol recotittnettd chatiges toi tIte criteria attd standards. CAA I 09( cI )( 2)( A); 42 U .S.C. 7409(ch )(2)( A). Itt aclcli ti(ilt to adhv i sitig thie Atlittin istrat(ir (if areas i ti which adchit mortal kttowleclge and research oiti public health effects is tteeded, the coittitti ittee is t(i advise ilte AcItit itt istraidir oif a large nutituier tif Ott lien h~actcirs. These f~actoirs md itde ''atiy adverse pitbl ic heal tli, welfare, social, ecortoim ic. oir energy effects which tttay result frotti vartoiits strategies I(ir aitai tmntetit attol niaintettance of sttcht tiat iottal anthient air qt.tality staticlarchs." CAA I 09(cl )(2)(C ( iv): 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)( 2 )(C)( iv). In other woincls, the conint ittee is t(i investigate and report toi the Aclministratoir aliout public health and tiottpitbh ic Iteal It factors regard i ttg t hue ttat iortah air standards. Agaitt, it is unlikely that Cotigtess itttettcledl the ttdehiettdlent review count ttt ittee and thie AcInt itt i st rat(ir toi nvestigate these factors, attol yet rt(ut coitisioler t [tern whicti rev isitig att air stattoharol.





17
16
In sltoirt, there is tto ''ex~itess cotigressional clirectiott'' itt t lie Cheati Air Act as a whole, un i ti sect i(iti 109 t fiat
ftrechotdles EPA from cottsicleritig cost oir (ithier factuirs when sett ittg (in revisitig att air qitahity standard. Ott the cottirary, a reasuinable i tttetpretat ion (if t lie lattgitage of the Act as a whtofe. antI sect ion 109 itself, is thtat EPA is toi gathter attol ciittsioher such iii format i(itt wheti rev i si rug an air dual it y staitchatch. The Coit rt sltoit Id there fore htohI that, proiperh y aital yzech itticler C'hevron and outhier cases, sect ioin I 09(b) allows EPA toi consider costs as well as bettefits in settittg (in revtstntg a staticlarcf.
2. The legislative history oif the Cleati Air Act also ttcl tt(hes i ttd cat iotts that, while ''criteria'' deal cx htaitst ivel V wit It t I te sciettti fic itt fortitatioti avai fable ott thte cli rect pitlil ic htea It It effects of~ a part icu I an pit1 I ittatit, a ''standard'' shtoiit Id al so take ot lien, tt(~ttheaht hi factors i tttoi account. The getteral tett(ir of the debates cent ai ti I y i itch icates a gettciitght att ituche t(iwatdls air p01 I itt iott, and clearly cletitotistrates that the Act was ttttettdeol to be techtnohoigy forcittg. h-however, the history al su i sitggests t Itat ecotionitte attd techuttological factors were itot t(i be entirely igttorecl.

Att exchtattge ott tht is i ssite hook fihace clot nitig 1970 Settate Public Works Sttttcottittttittee 1-leanitugs oin Air Poil hitt iott. At one point iti the cliscimssioitt, Senator Mitsk ie was oliscitssi tig criteria mmcl standards wi tIt Uttdersecretary oif he I)eparttrtettt of Heal tli Eolucat iott and Welfare Vettentan:
Mttskie:
The statidard is sotitethting cli ffereatt frtmm thte criteria, isn't it?
Vettetttatt : The criteria ate t ftc basis itliditi which yoit establish thte stantharol.
Mit sk ie:
Ve tienuati:
I how does t Itat cli Oct froittt a
criterion? What else is there (if
a standard?

.As well as the hmeahthi aspect. tltere are esthetic. ecotttntitc artol other aspects. You ntay want t(i take ott lien thiitigs itttoI cottsidenatioin itt yottr staticlarcls.
Senate Pitbh ic Woinks Stthicoitiittuittee oin Air Poll itt ion, 9f ~ Cortg. I 6() (1970).

TIme lii story of the 1977 antendtiietmt s al S(i cotmtatns a pertitment coinitiient iti the Report by the Commtmm ittee oitm Ittierstate atid Foreigrt (Tonittimence. '1~fte Contttti ttee I isteol a tmittimber of slionteorti i ttgs itt the existing st aticlarols, atiol thmeti stated:

The f~oiregoi rug ofeficietme ies itt t he I standards ate pervasive attol tot easily etireil. Sottie Itave suggested that sitice the standards ate to firotect agaitust all kttown oin anticipated effects and sttice ti(i safe thresholds cati be established, the atnbietti standards should be set at zero or liackgrciuttcl levels. Obviously, this no-,ok philosophy ignOreS all ecOnOnlie (111(1 social eonseq,witee~ and is impractical.

Coitmtniittee citi htmterstare attd Foreigrt Cotnmetce, Repc cit. I 27 May I 2, 1977 )( eniphmasis sithilil icch).

Moreover, Cointgt~ess Itas hiruivicheof tmtomt~e thaim tmiertz suggestions, at least with regard to cizotte. Cotmgness Itas





18 19


ah neatly tec(igtt i zech that atta i tttitetmt (it tIme I Itout r ozoitme stattolanch was itimpossible (in nearly so itt sonte regiotis. In etmact ittg Tithe I. Part D, Subpart 2, Cotigress has set ttp ati al tetttat ive regittie for ttmatmagitmg oizonte pohluttioti, clearly t~ecogtm / itg that at tai tttmtetmt (if t lie st attohard (in gi tial I y set by EPA was tmot f~easibhe giveti cumretit techitmohoigy. Comtmmtttettts iif Settattir Dutnettberger with regard toi tIme 1990 attmendtmtetmts t(i I Ite Act ohettmottstrate this poitit

I I jhme whmohe pttrpo~e of t It is lii II is, wlmerever
p~si file, toi substitute. for artificial ii tiascent aittable staimdarohs (if heal tIm (in safety, techmtmohogy statmolards that suit time ecotiomic jtt.ogt~ess (if atm itmdlitst nial society.

Ct itigiessiottal Researchm Service oif the Library of Coiiigress for t lie Cottitimittee (itt Ettv ir(ititiietmt aitch 1~ttbh ic Works, U.S. Senate, A Le~'islative hIistor~' of tlte Clean Air A t Ameochnents of I 9Q0, 5683 (1993). As Cotmgt~ess clearly t(ioik cost. techttmohogicah feasi hi lit y atid oithter factoirs ittto accoiittmt whmeti it passeh Subpart 2 oif tite Clean Air Act, it is itn reastit tahihe tom assut tite titat Cotm gress i imtettcls for EPA to igttore t Imese facttit~s whieti rev isi tmg a st attolanch for the saitte
S



3. Finally. sout tiol acitmi iti m strat ive p(il icy i tich icates t Imat c(ist in its hiroaohest setmse is always a factoir itt niakitmg a ohecisititi aboitt tIme etmv i rotmtmiettt atmol public lineal t hi. "ICiatm atm agetmey seimsibhy decide whether a risk is sigttificatmt withiout ahsoi exatmtitmitmg tite coist oinf ehimitmatitig it?'' Stephteti 0. I3reyer, Ricimarci B. Steward, Cass R. Sutrmsteitm & Matthew L. Sitzer, Adn,i,tistratiie I.au' & Reu,'ulatorv Poluv 65 (4tti ech.

S

As witt be argued at tii(ire tetigiti in itie Stipptitt ing States' sectitid biiet. given itie existence tit Snbpatt 2. ktiA caitittit revise ttie tiititte staii(tcii(t at at
1999) As discussedi above, time coittsidlerati(itt of ittiut -Imealt It factomrs is time (ittly settsilihe way tom estalmi isit atm air qital ity staticlanol for a monthtreshmohch poll uttattt . A ct i',t - hmet te fit atiahysis tmieans "(itm hy a systettiat ic weigim m ttg (if time pros atmol cOtm5' (if a pant ictt Ian statmdarch. Interncaional 1/ijO/I I 0.511/I. 938 F.2c1 I 3 I 0, I 3 1921 ( I).C. Cm. 10)91 t. h~tthil ic. Imealtlt factoins ale tiot igtiotecl, attol i tmcheecl simoni Id be tIme pnittlany factor iti cleterimiitm i tig a stattohattI.

Soittine comttmttmetttatons Imave takett time view timar enmv i roititmietital agetme ies. wim i he ci aitmt ittg t(i timake dcc tstotts based ott scietice. are itt teal ity largely cost atmd p(ih icy olniveti. Wetidy Wagner, '11w Science ('lu,,ade in Ioxh Risk Regulation. 9S Colitimi. L. Rev. 161 3 (Nov. 190)5). Wagtmer espomutses t lie view that ettv i notitmicutal ageticies imave perpetutateol a ''sciettee cimaracle'' itt whmicit they exaggerate the roule oil scietice i ti seit itug staticlarcls m ti order iti avoid accoutitahiih ity for the uttmclenhyittg policy dectstoiims.

Wimere. as Itere. t Ite scietit i lie sit fi1i(itt for a timote st ni tmgetmt statmohard is tit itt. cost atmol (ithmer ttotmltcaf t It factors are evetm tiioite itmmportattt itt titakitig a somuttol aoftmti ni st native dhecisi(iti. EPA's actioti itt revising the (iz(itie statmdard is uttmsitppomrted by atmy ref iabhe scietmti lie cv iolenice sit fficietttfy deimmomnstrat i tig health betme fits for time mew statmofard. I tistead. EPA acititits that the ttew (izoitme statmdand is largely the resutit of a policy iucfgnmettt. Reasotis for time revised statmdard "were largely jutolgimmetital itt tmatit re . . . and tmmay tiot be anmetmable tom clutatmt i ficat moitin in tennis of whtat risk is 'acceptable.' oir atty (itimer tiietnic." 62 Fed. Reg. 38652, 38(i88 (fd)97)

EPA imas tm(it shtoiwn that time proiposech ozotme staticiandh is "reqit i site to protect time pulil ic hteaftim'' wi tim ''atm adeqi.tate timargiti of safety.'' Time Cottrt hmas ecitistruted ''safety'' ummder the Cheati Air Act as ''a sigtm i ficatit risk tif Itartit.'' 'invl Chloride, 824 F.2c1 at 1153 (of uditing Industrial Union I)ep't, Ah"LCI() v. Anu'rican Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642





21
20
(1980)) See also Fihyl Coip. i. EPA. 5 I F.3c1 10S3, 1063 h).C. Cm. I 995) EPA's departure froitit "sigtmificattt risk of hiartmt'' to ''reasoittable basis for coticerti'' statindard cniticizeol .

As tmmettt otiecl aboive, the statuttory tiianolate tot prov iole aim ''adhedhuate'' tiniargi tm oif safety peon its EPA toi take ittto accoitttt soitiiewftat less scietit i lie itttcertai Itty t hiatt utioler atm "atmiphe tmmargitm (if safety. FIJI", 598 F.2c1 at 8 I However, tIme tttatgitm of safety itmquiry sutpposes a sigttificatit public hmealtIm risk. atmh I iPA has tmot chetmmoittstratech tltat tIme revised ozotme statichanch is tmeedfedf toi avouiol sight i ficaimt hteahtlm risks.

EPA admits that tIme sciettee sutppoirtitmg the change itt tIme statmhatch is itrtcertaitt ee, e.g.. 62 Fed, keg. 38856, 38867 (f 997) (''tIme Adtmmiit istrator atmd CASAC have tecogtm i led ... tltat I mete at~e tmmatmy i.ttmcet~tai tuties i nIucretit itt I risk I assesstmmctmt s atmch tlmat tIme resit It iting ratinges oif dhitalint i tat i ye risk est i tmtates do tm(it reflect all (if t lie titteerta it tt tes associated within the tmut tintenomits assutttmpt ioitms itmhm'tetmt itt sueft atmahyses''). The chitbiouis sciettee nel icol oitin hmy Eh~A was criticized liy many, mncluchitig the State oif Ohio. "It is tm(it p(issibhe to make ant itinfoinniedi chtattge iti tIme statmclard si imee there is no statistical basis upoti wIt ichi to clist i tiguishi the natmge (if pt~(ip(isahs. Ohio's Cotmttiients. Recordh No. hV-D-9934.

Wi thoiti Imard scietit i lie facts shmoiwi ttg a sigtii ficattt risk of hmarttt, EPA ttmust hmave revised tIme stattdat~cl based oitm omthtcn factors as well, EPA adtiiits that it selected tIme oizoitte stattcfantl based titin ''putbl ic hmealthi p(ih icy juttlgmerints in add it i(itt to chetertmt i tmat iotms oil a strictly scietint i fic ttatttre.'' 62 Fed, keg. 38856, 38867 (1997). These vague "juolgtttents" tmiake it inipossible t(i thetemninitme whietlmer the statindlardl pr(ividhes atm ''adledfuate utargiti oif safety.''

Within suteht utmcertai n heal thi betinefi ts for the tiew standard, the pnutdettt course is toi bahattee thietmi against costs
artcl other factors. To lie useful, Itowever. est i inmates of costs atinch oithmcr i nipacts mmmttst lie coittmpnehmetmsive aitch accurate. 'lIme Regitlatoiry Ittinpact Atmal ysi s (''R IA'') that EPA pt~eparech ( hiitt presutitably dhidh ticit ecitisiden itt setting thte ozitie statinchanch grossly undenestitinmates tIme cost oif the staticlanch. For itinstattec, Oft io estimated that patti al coitnph iattce within tIme statmclancl pi, the state womitlch coist $760 tmii II ioti, wlini he tIme R IA est i immatech thmat partial cotmiph iatmce fir the entire nation womuthch coist $600 titi II iotm. Ohiioi's Coittintminetmts. Record No. I VD9934.~'

Iti slioint, finutdhetmt achtmi itt i strat ive poil icy atinol fmh ai mm c(itmitrt(int setise chetitatich thmat EPA cotinsider coists antI other relevatmt factors whtctm settitig a ttcw tiat ional atinmbictit air qutal i ty stantlanch. wIt i he keepitmg tIme putbl ic Iteahthm as its primary goiah. The Coiurt slinotulcI interpret sectiditi 109 to al hoiw atid nequti t~e t Imat coitmsiclerat ioti.

TIme hatugutage of tIme Cleatm Air Act, as well as tIme legislative hi stoiny, ~ioi tint t tIme reasonmabhc coit mel itsiotm t Imat tIme EPA is to cotinsicher factoirs oithter tliati cli reel pulil ic Imealthm effects wlinen sett ittg atich rev isitig a nat iomntah ambient air quality standard. U tither tIme hi tsi pant oif Chei'ron, tfmetefomne, a reviewing eciurt mnitst putt tIme ('outingnessioinah intetmt inttoi effect. i3utt eveit if tIme i tmtcnt is ittic hear. soutinch acftmi itt ist native poil icy atid plai tin logic netm(hen EPA's ratiomale f~oin rev i si utm omf t ftc oizotme atid part icit fate statmolarcls ''nit i titel I igi ble.'' U tinder tIme secorinci patt of C'hem'ro~',, a reviewittg coiitrt ntutst hold that EPA's rat iottahe reflects art ''i imiperittissi ble coitmst wet iotm oif tIme statute."





Et it a vitire e xte us i Xe (hi scuss (iii (if t tie costs ti t tie rev i sett o iotie statid~ttd .sc'i' t3iiet 01 Appatactiiiiti Pitwer ('tittipatty, c/ ccl., t vittodttctitiut. patt It atid Briet tit Attiericati t~rttckittg Asstic.iaticitis.c tilt.. tctt todtctititt. pail 13 I.





23
22
('ON C I. U SI ( )N

loin tIme fotegoiitmg reas(itts, the States of Olmio, NI iclmiy~atm attol West Virgim inia respect full y request thinat the ('titit avoid time fititeittial cotmstitutiotmah issue by revensitig tIme dhecisiolit of time coutit of appeals toi tIme extetint tlinat it precludes EPA frotmm cotinsichenitig factors other tlinart cli met pitbh ic linealtim effects oif a poillutatint whiemin it sets or tevises a natioittah ammmbiettt air quality staitdaroi. him aclchitiotm, thte Suippontitig States respect futh hy rec~utest tltat the Court circler the lower cout it ttI vacate tIme oizotme attol part ictilate titatter staitcharchs, atmh reittaitch tIm is case to EPA for necoinsiderat iotm of thinoise st a tic1 a ii] s

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY D. MONTGOMERY
Am toitmey Getmeral oif Ohm ioi
EDWARI) B. FOLEY
State Soihicitor
JUDITh-I L. FRENCIF'
ELISE W. POR'1ER
FRANK J. REED, JR.
Assi statint Attorimeys Getmeral
Office oif the Attoinimey Getienal
30 ruist Broach Street, I 7th Flooin
Coil umminbits, Ohmio 43215-3428
(614) 466-2872
Counsel/or Respondent State (?f Ohio
MARK J. RUDOLPH
Deputy Chief
Office of Legal Services
West V irgitmia I)iv isiotm of
I mvi r(itmtmmetttah Protect moit
I 356 II aims fond St meet
Cliarhestoitin, West Vitgiit ia 25301
(304) 558-9160
C'ounsel for Respondenl .Siate of West 'irc.,'i)tia



JENNIFER M. GRANHOEM
Attomnmiey C3etteral oif M ichtigaim
TI IOMAS CASEY
Soil icitor (icimenal
ALAN F. hOFFMAN
PAMELA i. STEVENSON
Assistant Attoiniteys Geimeral
Natittal Resources I)mvmsmoirt
300 S. Waslinimtgtotm. Suite 3 IS
Lansitig, Michtigati 489 17
(517) 373-7540
Counselor Respondent State of Michigan
~Couiitseh of Recorof .htmhy. 2000


I Aohh it iommah Coumimseh Listeti oinmin Next Page I



FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More