## Facts

- EPA issued final regulations under Clean Air Act (CAA) § 183(e) setting national volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for architectural coatings to support attainment of the ozone national ambient air quality standard.
- The rule followed EPA study of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products, notice-and-comment proceedings, and revisions responding to submitted comments.
- The regulations covered multiple coating categories and included compliance deadlines and limited flexibility mechanisms (including averaging and exemptions).
- Petitioners (a manufacturers’ association and a paint manufacturer, including smaller regional firms) sought review, arguing the rule imposed significant economic burdens and exceeded EPA’s authority.
- Petitioners also alleged EPA failed to satisfy the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), and argued Congress lacked Commerce Clause power to authorize the regulation.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA reasonably interpreted and applied CAA § 183(e) in promulgating VOC limits for architectural coatings under Chevron.
2. Whether EPA complied with the RFA’s requirements to assess impacts on small entities and consider alternatives.
3. Whether EPA satisfied UMRA’s analytical and procedural requirements for rules imposing significant costs.
4. Whether regulating the manufacture and sale of architectural coatings under CAA § 183(e) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power.

## Decision

- The court denied the petitions for review and upheld the regulations in full.
- The court held EPA’s interpretation and implementation of CAA § 183(e) were reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.
- The court held EPA satisfied the RFA by preparing the required analysis, considering small-entity comments, and evaluating alternatives.
- The court rejected the UMRA challenge, concluding the statute was not triggered or, in any event, EPA met its analytical and procedural duties through accompanying analyses.
- The court held the regulation was within Congress’s Commerce Clause power because it regulates economic products in interstate trade and addresses emissions with substantial interstate effects.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute does not unambiguously foreclose an agency’s approach, a court will uphold a reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron, particularly in technically complex regulatory programs.
- CAA § 183(e) authorizes EPA to regulate VOC emissions from listed consumer and commercial product categories to assist ozone NAAQS attainment and leaves EPA significant discretion in selecting reasonable control mechanisms and limits.
- The RFA is primarily procedural: an agency must prepare the required flexibility analysis, consider small-entity impacts and reasonable alternatives, and explain its choices; it does not mandate a specific regulatory outcome.
- UMRA generally imposes analytical and procedural obligations tied to specified cost thresholds; compliance is satisfied where the agency’s rulemaking record contains the required cost considerations and evaluations of options.
- Environmental product standards regulating economic activity and pollutants with interstate effects ordinarily fall within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit sustained EPA’s national VOC-content limits for architectural coatings as a permissible exercise of EPA’s authority under CAA § 183(e), finding the rule supported by a reasonable statutory interpretation and adequate procedural analyses under the RFA and UMRA, and comfortably within Congress’s Commerce Clause power.


Allied Loc. & Reg’l Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2000)