American Trucking Associations, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners, V. United States Environmental Protection Agency Series, Respondent

By Schiffer, Lois J.

Book Id: WPLBN0000114571
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 0.1 MB
Reproduction Date: 2007

Title:	American Trucking Associations, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners, V. United States Environmental Protection Agency Series, Respondent
Author:	Schiffer, Lois J.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Ecology, Natural resource issues, Environemtal protection
Collections:	Environmental Awareness Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	United States Environmental Protection Agency


Citation APA MLA Chicago Schiffer, L. J. (n.d.). American Trucking Associations, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners, V. United States Environmental Protection Agency Series, Respondent. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Excerpt: A. The Panel Majority’s Nondelegation Holding Conflicts with Supreme Court Decisions and Is Inconsistent with Decisions of this Court Upholding EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA.1 The majority’s decision departs abruptly from more than sixty years of Supreme Court nondelegation cases. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 371-74 (1989); Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212, 219 (1989), and cases cited therein. The Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution requires Congress to establish “determinate criteria” that preclude the exercise of discretion in choosing between numerical levels, as the majority did here. Where the statute provides clear principles, as here, courts examine whether the agency has properly applied them under the rubric of the arbitrary and capricious doctrine, as this Court has done in every previous NAAQS case. American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998), petition for cert. filed, 67 U.S.L.W. 3749 (U.S. June 1, 1999) (No. 98-1929); NRDC v. EPA, 902 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1990), vacated in Part IV only, 921 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1991); API v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Lead Indus. Ass’n v. EPA (“Lead Indus.”), 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND THEIR IMPORTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. The Panel Majority’s Nondelegation Holding Conflicts with Supreme Court Decisions and Is Inconsistent with Decisions of this Court Upholding EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. The Issues Are Of Exceptional Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I. SECTION 109 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. The Act As Interpreted By EPA And This Court Supplies “Intelligible Principles” That Constrain EPA’s Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. The Majority’s Decision Precludes On Constitutional Grounds An Interpretation Of The Act That This Court Has Repeatedly Sustained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C. The Majority Failed To Recognize How The CAA’s Intelligible Principles Limited EPA’s Discretion In The Rules At Issue Here . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. THE PANEL ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT EPA LACKS AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE REVISED OZONE STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. The Panel Lacked Jurisdiction To Decide Whether EPA Could Implement The Revised NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. The Panel Erred In Concluding That The Act Precludes EPA From Implementing The Revised Ozone Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 III. CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND EPA TO CONSIDER ALLEGED HEALTH BENEFITS OF GROUND-LEVEL OZONE IN SHIELDING THE PUBLIC FROM UVB RADIATION CAUSED BY THE SUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30