Law Center Search Results

The NAM challenged two final regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that define hazardous solid waste and would impose stringent regulatory obligations governing waste generation, treatment, storage, disposal and permitting. The EPA asserted jurisdiction to regulate solid and hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which defined “hazardous waste” as “solid waste” that may pose a danger to human health or the environment. The definition is important to manufacturers that reuse materials in the manufacturing process, as well as for disposal and recycling procedures. The NAM sued the EPA to resolve concerns related to new affirmative duties and conditions on in-process materials that are not discarded. The NAM argued that EPA’s attempt to regulate materials that are not yet waste exceeds the agency’s authority. In a win for manufacturers, the court held that that some of the requirements imposed on companies using third-party recyclers exceeded the EPA's statutory authority and improperly presumed that recycled materials were discarded simply because the recyclers did not meet various paperwork requirements.

The NAM challenged an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort to interpret its authority with the “Tailoring Rule,” which attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. After earlier interpretations of the rule caused absurd consequences, the EPA raised thresholds to impact only the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The rule will impose significant administrative and cost burdens on manufacturers. The NAM argued that 1) the EPA could have adopted a more reasonable interpretation of its power so as to avoid the absurdities the rule attempts to mitigate; 2) although the EPA tried to avoid these absurd results by modifying the express statutory thresholds defining who is regulated, the action is outside of the EPA’s legal authority; and 3) as the rule is at odds with Congress’s intent when it enacted the Clean Air Act, the court must avoid agency interpretations that undermine the purpose of the law. The parties voluntarily dismissed this case in February 2016.

The NAM and other organizations filed another petition to review an EPA action that is part of its suite of regulations of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. One of our initial suits in this series challenged the EPA's effort to regulate light-duty vehicles, because the agency used that rule as a predicate for further regulation of manufacturing facilities. We challenged this latest rule, published Oct. 15, 2012, as well. The case was consolidated with Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. v. EPA (No. 12-1428, D.C. Cir.), but that case was voluntarily dismissed, and our challenge was severed and held in abeyance pending a decision from the Supreme Court in UARG v. EPA. After that ruling, we stipulated a dismissal of this case.

On May 15, 2008, the Department of the Interior issued an Interim Final Special Rule designating the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, based on its determination that global climate change, resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, threatened to injure the bears' habitat by reducing polar ice. As part of this rule, the Department provided an exemption for greenhouse gas emissions, since they are part of a worldwide phenomenon that cannot be traced to particular activities in particular locations affecting the bears.

This exemption applied to greenhouse gas emissions in all states except Alaska. On August 27, the NAM joined with the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association and the American Iron and Steel Institute in filing a complaint challenging the Department's omission of Alaska from the exemption. Manufacturing and other business operations in Alaska that may produce greenhouse gases should not be treated differently than those of companies in the other 49 states. This "Alaska Gap" exposed Alaskan operations to increased permitting burdens and/or the risk of enforcement by government authorities and citizen suits.

Our lawsuit challenged the Alaska Gap as arbitrary and capricious, since the best scientific data in the rulemaking record do not demonstrate enough of a connection between specific actions resulting in emissions and an effect on the polar bear.

The NAM supported the exemption for all states from permitting for greenhouse gas emissions that might affect polar bear habitat, not just every one but Alaska. The NAM was not challenging the decision to designate the polar bear as a threatened species.

On December 16, 2008, the Department of the Interior amended the rule to eliminate the "Alaska gap" carve-out provision, but implemented a more narrow carve-out. The business groups decided not to challenge the more narrow carve-out, and on April 6, 2009, stipulated that our complaint could be dismissed. In the stipulation order, the court recognized that the business groups were Defendant-Intervenors in both the Center for Biological Diversity case and the Defenders of Wildlife case, which involve other issues affecting polar bears. See the Center for Biological Diversitysummary for details on these combined cases.