Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

American Forest and Paper Association, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

294 F.3d 113 (2002)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...

American Forest and Paper Association, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

294 F.3d 113 (2002)

Facts

In 1990, Congress amended § 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to establish a list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including methanol. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) regulated the list of HAPs. The EPA had not, to date, established an inhalation reference concentration for methanol or an estimated maximum exposure to methanol that a human could tolerate for 70 years without experiencing any adverse health effect, as extrapolated from animal studies. The American Forest and Paper Association, Inc. (the association) (plaintiff) petitioned the EPA to delete methanol from the list of HAPs, based on a study on the effect of methanol exposure on mice (the Rogers study) and a study on the effects of methanol inhalation on primates (the Burbacher study). Based on these studies, the association proposed a “safe exposure level” (SEL) to methanol for humans of 83 mg/m3 and claimed that humans would predictably not be exposed to more than 3.65 mg/m3 in a 24-hour period, which was below the proposed SEL. The EPA disagreed with critical aspects of both studies and concluded that there was not adequate data to determine that emissions of methanol could not reasonably be anticipated to result in adverse effects on human health. The association sought review of the EPA’s denial of the petition to delist methanol, arguing that the EPA misinterpreted the statutory delisting standard and had unreasonably discounted the association’s data.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership