## Facts

- Congress added Clean Air Act (CAA) § 213, directing EPA to regulate emissions from nonroad engines to achieve the greatest achievable emission reductions considering cost, noise, energy, and safety.
- EPA regulated small spark-ignition engines, distinguishing handheld engines and subdividing them into size-based classes.
- EPA proposed stricter “Phase 2” limits for hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for new handheld nonroad engines, using a supplemental notice and extending the comment period by 30 days.
- In April 2000, EPA issued a final Phase 2 rule with more demanding limits and a phased compliance schedule.
- Husqvarna and related manufacturers petitioned for review of the Phase 2 standards in the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA’s Phase 2 handheld-engine emission standards were arbitrary and capricious under CAA § 213 for failing to properly balance statutory factors.
2. Whether EPA’s selection of standards was unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding technological feasibility and cost.
3. Whether the rule was invalid due to inadequate notice and opportunity to comment under APA notice-and-comment requirements.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for review.
- The court held the standards were not arbitrary and capricious under CAA § 213.
- The court held EPA’s feasibility and cost determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- The court held the rulemaking process provided adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to comment, and any alleged procedural defects were not prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- Under CAA § 213, EPA may set standards targeting the greatest achievable emission reductions while weighing cost, noise, energy, and safety, and courts defer to reasonable agency balancing supported by the record.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, a court will uphold technical rules where the agency considered relevant factors and explained its choices; it will not substitute its judgment for the agency’s technical predictions when reasonably supported.
- Substantial-evidence review is satisfied when the record contains relevant evidence a reasonable decisionmaker could accept as adequate for conclusions on feasibility, costs, and compliance timing.
- Notice-and-comment requirements are met when the proposal and supplemental materials fairly apprise interested parties of the subjects and issues and the agency provides a meaningful opportunity to comment; procedural challenges generally require a showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s Phase 2 emission standards for handheld nonroad engines, finding EPA’s technology- and cost-based judgments reasonable and supported by the administrative record and concluding that the notice-and-comment process was adequate.


Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2001)