From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
International Fabricare Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
972 F.2d 384 (1992)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) to establish national drinking-water standards and issue regulations to prevent the harmful contamination of public water systems. The EPA promulgated the required regulations to identify and regulate harmful contaminants in drinking water. The EPA established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for each contaminant at a level at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects would occur and that allowed for an adequate margin of safety. The regulations also specified an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for most contaminants that set the maximum permissible level of the contaminant in public water systems. In 1989, the EPA resubmitted its rulemaking with a revised proposal that contained MCLGs and MCLs for 38 organic and inorganic chemicals and responded to public comments. International Fabricare Institute and several other companies (the companies) (plaintiffs) challenged the EPA’s regulations for four contaminants. The EPA considered each of the four contaminants a known or probable human carcinogen. The EPA set MCLGs for all carcinogens at zero because it assumed there was no known threshold that carcinogens could be tolerated. The companies asserted that the EPA did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it failed to consider two documents written by doctors and scientists that identified shortcomings in the methods and data used. In both documents, the doctors did not conduct new experiments or new statistical analysis but instead opined that low doses of carcinogens were less harmful than generally thought. The EPA stated that it considered the studies but would not change its zero-goal policy because scientific data did not show a safe threshold for carcinogen exposure. The companies petitioned for review in district court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
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 618,000 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
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 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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.