American Petroleum Inst. v. United States EPA case brief summary
858 F.2d 261
SYNOPSIS: After a remand, petitioners, the American Petroleum Institute and oil companies, were before the court to petition for the review of an order from respondent Environmental Protection Agency that issued a regulation by which respondent determined that diesel oil could be characterized under 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(h)(1) as an indicator or a carrier of toxic pollutants.
FACTS: Respondent Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations by which it imposed restrictions upon oil companies that drilled offshore in Alaskan waters. After a remand, petitioners, the American Petroleum Institute and oil companies, petitioned the court to invalidate those regulations. The regulations allowed respondent to impose the more stringent best available technology limitations to control conventional pollutants and to remove the modifications required for nonconventional pollutants, if that pollutant could be characterized under 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(h)(1) as an indicator or a carrier of toxic pollutants. Respondent found diesel oil to be an indicator pollutant and required drillers to use mineral oil, rather than diesel oil, as a drilling additive to lubricate mud.
HOLDING:
On review, the court denied the petition. The court held that respondent had adequately supported its regulations, that respondent had followed its regulations in ordering the substitution, and that respondent's interpretation of the various surveys and choices between the indicated outcomes commanded great deference.
RULES:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrators’ considerable discretion in setting, applying, and enforcing best available technology effluent limitations should not be disturbed without a showing of a compelling lapse in administrative judgment.
CONCLUSION: After a remand the court denied the challenge to regulations that were promulgated by respondent Environmental Protection Agency. The court upheld the regulations that permitted respondent to characterize diesel oil as a carrier of toxic pollutants and to require drillers to use mineral oil rather than diesel oil as a drilling additive to lubricant mud because respondent amply supported the requirements.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
858 F.2d 261
SYNOPSIS: After a remand, petitioners, the American Petroleum Institute and oil companies, were before the court to petition for the review of an order from respondent Environmental Protection Agency that issued a regulation by which respondent determined that diesel oil could be characterized under 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(h)(1) as an indicator or a carrier of toxic pollutants.
FACTS: Respondent Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations by which it imposed restrictions upon oil companies that drilled offshore in Alaskan waters. After a remand, petitioners, the American Petroleum Institute and oil companies, petitioned the court to invalidate those regulations. The regulations allowed respondent to impose the more stringent best available technology limitations to control conventional pollutants and to remove the modifications required for nonconventional pollutants, if that pollutant could be characterized under 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(h)(1) as an indicator or a carrier of toxic pollutants. Respondent found diesel oil to be an indicator pollutant and required drillers to use mineral oil, rather than diesel oil, as a drilling additive to lubricate mud.
HOLDING:
On review, the court denied the petition. The court held that respondent had adequately supported its regulations, that respondent had followed its regulations in ordering the substitution, and that respondent's interpretation of the various surveys and choices between the indicated outcomes commanded great deference.
RULES:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrators’ considerable discretion in setting, applying, and enforcing best available technology effluent limitations should not be disturbed without a showing of a compelling lapse in administrative judgment.
CONCLUSION: After a remand the court denied the challenge to regulations that were promulgated by respondent Environmental Protection Agency. The court upheld the regulations that permitted respondent to characterize diesel oil as a carrier of toxic pollutants and to require drillers to use mineral oil rather than diesel oil as a drilling additive to lubricant mud because respondent amply supported the requirements.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment