Lead Industries Association v. EPA case
brief
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?
647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioners, lead
industry association and others (association), sought review of
regulations promulgated by respondent Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et. seq., that
concerned the health problems associated with lead in the ambient
air.
FACTS: The EPA issued regulations that promulgated national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq. The association asserted that the EPA administrator had exceeded his authority under the Act in promulgating the lead standards, that key elements of the EPA's analysis were arbitrary and capricious, and that there were procedural shortcomings in the lead standards. The association also filed a motion for leave to supplement the index to the administrative record that the association asserted bore directly on questions of rationality and fairness of the EPA's decisionmaking process and procedures. The court held that the EPA complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Act in the rulemaking proceeding and that the EPA's decisions were adequately explained and amply supported by evidence in the record. The court held that nothing in the Act indicated that a party or the EPA could reopen the record to place additional materials other than those required by the Act or that were wrongfully omitted, but certain records that concerned conflict of interest allegations were properly before the court.
---
FACTS: The EPA issued regulations that promulgated national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq. The association asserted that the EPA administrator had exceeded his authority under the Act in promulgating the lead standards, that key elements of the EPA's analysis were arbitrary and capricious, and that there were procedural shortcomings in the lead standards. The association also filed a motion for leave to supplement the index to the administrative record that the association asserted bore directly on questions of rationality and fairness of the EPA's decisionmaking process and procedures. The court held that the EPA complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Act in the rulemaking proceeding and that the EPA's decisions were adequately explained and amply supported by evidence in the record. The court held that nothing in the Act indicated that a party or the EPA could reopen the record to place additional materials other than those required by the Act or that were wrongfully omitted, but certain records that concerned conflict of interest allegations were properly before the court.
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