Answer

In Small Refiner VS EPA case, Small Refiner sought review of EPA guideline that determines lead substance checks for leaded gasoline made by specific “small” refiners. This paper analyzes how the court handled the degree to which EPA must assess economic concerns against the public health considerations in promulgating new standards for lead in fuel.  This paper covers four topics which are; the standards of review the court used in the case, the difference between APA S.553 and S.307 (d) of the Clean Air Act in rulemaking, the EPA’s standard judicial review, and why the court invalidate EPA’s actions.

Standards of Review Used by the Court in Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force

The court ruled that EPA confirmed with S.211 (g) (2) of the Clean Air Act, which approves EPA to control small refiners after October 1, 1982, if it integrates past encounters under the sliding-scale criterion. Likewise, the court ruled that EPA might circulate lead content control under S. 211(c) that are harsher than needed in undergoing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the lead. Whereas both S.108 is administrating NAAQS and S.211 guide EPA in protecting public health and wellbeing, nothing in S.211 forbids EPA from establishing the different functional standards for fuel extracts than for ambient air quality.

Differences Between the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Required Under Section 553 Of the APA and The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Required Under Section 307(D) of The Clean Air Act

The public always partakes widely in rulemakings and other supervisory practices under the Clean Air Act, and several sections of the Act openly offer such engagements. S. 307(d) determines procedural conditions for most of the foremost rulemaking activities that EPA is needed to execute under the Act, incorporating the declaration of emission standards. These procedures pertain to those activities instead of the procedural necessities that would otherwise pertain under APA. But the processes created under S. 307(d) in most detail parallel APA.  The APA applies to all federal government agencies and offers general methods for several forms of rulemaking.  Federal agencies might promulgate rules via several approaches. Though S.553 of APA notice and comment rulemaking processes signifies the most widely followed procedures for issuing legislative guidelines, agencies might be needed to utilize other rulemaking alternatives, such as direct final, formal, hybrid, ad negotiated rulemaking. Also, the APA comprises full or partial exemptions to the statute’s otherwise pertinent procedural rulemaking requirements.

 The Standard of Judicial Review of EPA Action Under the Clean Air Act

The judicial review standard for EPA under the Clean Air Act S. 307 (b) (1) made a restricted number of rulemaking and standard-setting activities by EPA administrator reviewable entirely in the Courts of Appeals. 

EPA Actions Invalidate by the Court and Why

In Small Refiner VS EPA case, the court ruled that EPA deliberated a suitable series of options to the lead regulation in its examination under the Regulatory Flexibility Statute. The Act mandates agencies to examine options to reduce economic effects on small entities. Likewise, the court ruled that July 1, 1983, operational date for 1.10 gplg criterion is reasonable. EPA’s final 1.10 gplg gasoline lead benchmark was affirmed by the court, as is the past production prerequisite in the small refinery definition. EPA’s provisional 1.90 glpg standard was vacated for the absence of notice and lack of record proof in the small refinery definition because of absence notice and explanation for July 1, 1981 cut-off date.

In conclusion, this paper has effectively covered in Small Refiner VS EPA case, the standards of review the court used in the case, the difference between APA S.553 and S.307 (d) of the Clean Air Act in rulemaking, the EPA’s standard judicial review, and why the court invalidate EPA’s actions in In Small Refiner VS EPA case.