Judge Brad Garcia, nominated by President Biden to the DC Circuit court of appeals, wrote a unanimous opinion that upheld an EPA rule that regulates emissions from organic chemical manufacturing facilities due to the risk of cancer they cause. The August 2024 decision was in Huntsman Petrochemical LLC v EPA.
What happened in this case?
In 1998, EPA began an extensive process to comply with the Clean Air Act and determine what regulations were necessary concerning emissions of ethylene oxide by organic chemical manufacturing facilities that make antifreeze, plastics, and other products. After extensive study and public comment, EPA determined that people living near such facilities have a lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to ethylene oxide that is “four times” greater than what EPA “considers acceptable.”
EPA promulgated a rule regulating these emissions in 2020. It considered and rejected industry efforts to reconsider and revise the rule in 2022. Led by Huntsman Petrochemical LLC, the industry filed a petition to repeal the rule with the DC Circuit.
.
How Did Judge Garcia and the DC Circuit Rule and Why Is it Important?
Judge Garcia wrote a unanimous opinion that rejected the petition and upheld the EPA rule. He pointed out that in cases like this one involving EPA evaluation of “scientific data within its area of expertise,” courts generally accord “an extreme degree of deference” to the agency. Nevertheless, he carefully examined “each step” of EPA’s analysis and determined that the agency decision was proper. The industry had failed to demonstrate, he concluded, that EPA’s rule was “arbitrary, capricious” or “an abuse of discretion,” the legal standard that must be met to set aside such rules.
Garcia analyzed and rejected a “litany of complaints” by the chemical industry concerning the rule. For example, the corporations claimed that the EPA failed to use a model employed by a Texas environmental agency that did not find the high cancer risk found by EPA. Garcia wrote that the EPA “adequately explained” why the Texas model was wrong and did not truly “call the accuracy of EPA’s model into question.” The Texas model “did not fit the data,” he went on, while “EPA’s chosen model did.”
Judge Garcia’s opinion was obviously important to the EPA and the people whose health was in jeopardy if its rule on chemical emissions had not been adopted, as industry urged. The decision also provides an excellent example of careful court analysis to uphold complex EPA and other agency rules. It also serves as an example of the importance of confirming fair-minded judges to our nation’s federal courts.