Question

23–3. Agency Powers. A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many scientists believe that the two trends are related, because when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it produces a greenhouse effect, trapping solar heat. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate “any” air pollutants “emitted into... the ambient air” that in its “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution.” A group of private organizations asked the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA refused, stating, among other things, that the most recent congressional amendments to the CAA did not authorize any new, binding auto emissions limits. Nineteen states, including Massachusetts, asked a district court to review the EPA’s denial. Did the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles? If so, was its stated reason for refusing to do so consistent with that authority? Discuss.

Answer 1

PLEASE LIKE THIS ANSWER, IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU!!!

Findings:

In the case of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Massachusetts The Supreme Court held that the inability of the EPA to govern was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the Law on Administrative Procedure. The EPA declined to control pollution from new vehicles, and hid behind the Clean Air Act arguing that Congress did not approve new, binding restrictions on auto pollution. Nineteen states sued the EPA to force that agency to fulfill its mandate.

Arbitrary and Capricious Test:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts have the power to determine and determine whether the actions of the agency are unlawful and established to be arbitrary, capricious, abusive of discretion or other actions that are not in accordance with the law.

• Failed to provide sound justification for its decision.
• Revised without proof of the previous strategy.
• Legally used variables which are unacceptable.
• A critical factor entirely ignored.
• Clearly made a decision that was against the facts.

Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking:

To legally establish new rules for an organization it must do the following:

• Provide notice of the proposed new regulation publishing the language in the Federal Resister as well as the time, date and location where the hearings will be conducted.
• Allow the agency to respond to substantive comments that are relevant to the proposed rule by providing an interpretation or amending the rule for a fair comment period during this time.
• Publicly provide the final rule the rule will publish the rationale, logic, and intent of the rule in the Federal Register.

Informal Agency Action:

If an agency uses the informal method of interpretation, steps to rulemake notice-and-comment may be avoided. It is effective if the agency does not issue new rules but introduces a different definition to affected parties that does not enforce direct or legally binding obligations.

Opinion:

The Court ruled that greenhouse gasses fall within the concept of an air pollutant set out in the Clean Air Act and that the Environmental Protection Agency had the power to control the emission of gasses from new motor vehicles as any air pollutant contains any air pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA's defense that exercising its authority would conflict with other administrative priorities was denied by the Court, which acknowledged that the EPA would have to make a judgment as long as the judgment concerned whether a pollutant caused or contributed to air pollution which could reasonably be expected to endanger public health or welfare.

The only way the EPA can avoid enforcing legislation in this situation is to conclude that greenhouse gasses are not contributing to climate change. On the basis of this dodgy argument, the Court considered the EPA to be arbitrary, capricious and generally not in line with the laws and its own mandate. The Court then remitted the case to the EPA for purposes of action or inaction in the statute.

PLEASE LIKE THIS ANSWER, IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU!!!