Husqvarna AB v. Environmental Protection Agency

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) and added Section 213. Section 213 required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt emissions standards for nonroad engines and vehicles that would achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction through technology, considering the cost and time of applying the technology and noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the technology’s application. The EPA categorized engines as nonhandheld and handheld. The EPA regulated emissions from handheld engines in two phases. The Phase 1 standards were short-term emissions standards. The Phase 2 standards were slightly more stringent, and the EPA received input from engine manufacturers to determine which standards were feasible. The Phase 2 standards were calculated considering developments of new technology that promised to reduce emissions from handheld engines. The EPA also considered noise, energy, and safety factors. In 1999, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (supplemental proposal). The supplemental proposal proposed an emission limit. Many manufacturers commented on the supplemental proposal. The EPA extended the time to accept public input 30 days after the close of the public-comment period to allow manufacturers more opportunity to comment. The EPA determined that the Phase 2 standards were cost-effective, safe, and efficient and published final phase 2 emissions standards in April of 2000. Husqvarna sought review of the Phase 2 standards. Husqvarna argued that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious because the EPA failed to select the emissions standards that represent the best balance of the factors identified in the CAA and there was inadequate notice and opportunity to comment.