## Facts

- The Clean Air Act (CAA) § 112 lists hazardous air pollutants (HAPs); methanol is included on the statutory list.
- CAA § 112(b)(3)(A) allows any person to petition EPA to delete a substance from the HAP list and requires EPA to grant or deny the petition by publishing a written explanation of its reasons.
- American Forest and Paper Association, Inc., an industry trade association, petitioned EPA to delete methanol from the § 112(b) HAP list, asserting methanol did not meet the statutory criteria for listing.
- EPA denied the petition in a published notice, concluding the petition did not establish that methanol could not reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse health or environmental effects, citing limits and uncertainty in the evidence.
- The Association sought judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA’s published denial contained a sufficiently reasoned “written explanation of the reasons” to satisfy CAA § 112(b)(3)(A).
2. Whether EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding the petition failed to justify delisting methanol under the § 112(b)(3) standard.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review.
- EPA’s written explanation was sufficient to satisfy § 112(b)(3)(A).
- EPA’s denial was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful under the APA.
- Methanol remained on the CAA § 112(b) hazardous air pollutant list.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court upholds agency action if the agency examined relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation connecting the record to the decision; the court does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s.
- CAA § 112(b)(3) permits deletion from the HAP list only when the evidence supports that the substance’s emissions, ambient concentrations, and related pathways are not known to cause and may not reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects.
- The § 112(b)(3)(A) “written explanation” requirement is satisfied when EPA provides a non-conclusory statement of reasons that addresses the petition’s evidence and explains why it fails under the statutory standard.
- Courts give substantial deference to EPA’s scientific and technical determinations, including risk assessment judgments and EPA’s treatment of uncertainty in the evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s denial of the petition to delist methanol, holding that EPA adequately explained its reasons and reasonably applied the Clean Air Act’s stringent delisting standard under deferential APA review.


Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 294 F.3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2002)