Document DdzzrrjJx1m91w45VexNmy45

\ MNS:MPF 90-5-2-3-1606 U.S. Department of Justice September 1 3, 1985 SEP jg j j Mr. George A. Fisher, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. Courthouse, Room 5423 3rd Street & Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. 20001 N.W. Chemical Manufact ren :u!ion OFFICE OF GEN COUNSEL Re: NRDC v. EPA, et al. (No. 85-1150) Dear Mr. Fisher: Enclosed please find an original and two copies of EPA's Response to EDF's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Sincerely, Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division Enclosures Mark P. Fitzsimmons, Attorney Environmental Defense Section CMA 015455 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and LEE THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ] ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 85-1150 EPA RESPONSE TO EDF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF Respondents EPA et^ al. hereby respond to the motion of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in this case. Respondents do not oppose EDF's motion, although it is not in compliance with Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule provides that amicus briefs may be filed in support of petitioner's or respondent's main case; it does not provide for amicus reply briefs. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper & E. Gressman, Federal Practice & Procedure 3975 (1977). Moreover, the standard for granting amicus status is whether the would-be amicus is adequately represented by other parties, and whether he is raising issues not raised by the other parties. Id. NRDC adequately represents EDF's interests in this case, as EDF's CMA 015456 2 own motion concedes. Motion at page 2. And NRDC spent the first 10 pages of its reply brief on the only issue raised by EDF in its brief. Thus, the amicus motion need not be granted. More important is the issue addressed by EDF. In its brief, EPA stated that in the rulemaking on the 1977 proposed changes to the vinyl chloride standard, the only Agency action at issue in this case, no party argued that it was illegal to consider technological feasibility in setting a standard under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Brief at 11-12. EDF disputes this fact. In its comments on the 1977 rulemaking, attached to its motion, EDF did mention that it had made this argument in the 1975-76 rulemaking on the original standard, a rulemaking not at issue here. But EDF did not put forward that argument in reference to the 1977 proposed rules. On the contrary, it specifically endorsed the proposed standard, even though that standard was based primarily on available technology and thus suffered from the same alleged legal defect as the 1976 promulgated standard. EDF presumably did this because it was satisfied with the proposed tightening of the standard, even though it was still technology based: The proposed amendments represent a true compromise between what EDF could have pressed for in Court and the existing standard . . . The revised limits can be achieved through the improved operation of existing technology permitting full a mortization of the industry's investment in control technology. CMA 015457 3 EDF comments at 1-2. What EDF really seems to be attempting to do is resurrect its challenge to the 1976 rule. For the reasons stated at page 39-40 of EPA's brief, it cannot do so. Respectfully submitted. F. HENRY HABICHT II Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division y'iu r<t^L------ -r MARGARET N. STRA^fT) MICHAEL W. STEINBERG MARK P. FITZSIMMONS, Attorneys Environmental Defense Section Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.0. Box 23986 Washington, D.C. 20026-3986 (202) 633-2285 fJL iJL/~r EARL SALO / Office of General Counsel LE 132A (Air and Radiation) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 382-7632 OF COUNSEL: FRANCIS BLAKE General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CMA 015458 4 WILLIAM PEDERSEN Associate General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CHARLES CARTER Assistant General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CMA 015459 certificate of service I hereby certify that the foregoing EPA Response to EDF Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief was served upon the following counsel by first class mail, postage prepaid, this ' day of September, 1985: Neil Jay King, Esq. Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Arthur F. Sampson, III, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis 655 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 David F. Zoll, Esq. Fredric P. Andes, Esq. Chemical Manufacturers Association 2501 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Stark Ritchie, Esq. Martha Beauchamp, Esq. Arnold Block, Esq. American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Jerome A. Heckman, Esq. Peter L. de la Cruz, Esq. Keller & Heckman 1150 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Gary Baise, Esq. Robert Brager, Esq. Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036 N.W. David Doniger, Esq. Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Robert Percival, Esq. Environmental Defense Fund 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 MARK FirZSiMMOTTS CMA 015460 c f Pittteb plates Court of (Appeals 4 1986 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Chemical Manufacturers Association OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL NO. 85-1150 September Term, 1985 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc,, Petitioner v. U,S. Environmental Protection Agency and Lee Thomas, Administrator, U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Vinyl Institute, Intervenor Jnited Slates Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit FILED FEB 28 1886 GEORGE A. EISHER CLERK BEFORE: Wright, Edwards and Bork, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of petitioner's motion to correct reply brief, it is ORDERED, By the Court, that petitioner's aforesaid motion is granted and the reply brief is corrected as follows: Page 8, delete footnote 18 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof: "NRDC commented on two draft EPA 'policy statements' on the implementation of Section 112 in 1982 and 1983," Per Curiam For the Court: Patricia L, Chatman Deputy Clerk CHA 015461 HENRY L DIAMOND ALBERT J BEVERIDGE. XU GARY H 8AISE harolO himmelman CHRISTOPHER H BUCKLE*, JR. STEPHEN L. GORDON ALEXANDER W SIERCK JOHN FRENCH m* JOHN N HANSON Andrew e.mishkin WILLIAM N. HEOEMAN. JR GAINES GWATHMEY. nr CYNTHIA A LEWIS KARL S. BOURDCAU JOHN 5. GUTTMANN DON G. SCROGGIN GARY J. SMITH BENJAMIN F. WILSON AMY L, EDWARDS ROBERT BRAGER RICHARD $. DAVIS THOMAS RICHICHI OEAN H cannon VIRGINIA 5 ALBRECHT PAUL E SHORB.HT ROBERT H SINGLETARY. JR DONALD J. PATTERSON, JR. MARK A TURCO BRENDA MALLORY THOMAS C. JACKSON KATHRYN . SZMlJSZKOVICZ HAROLD L. SCGALL PETER J SACRlPANTI * DUSTIN P. ORDWAY KENNETH S. KAUFMAN Charles f gauvin* MARC A. 2EPPETCLL0* JOHN D. GIGUO" ELLIOT D. EDER SUSAN J. KOROSTOFF* AMY L* COMSTOCK * NOT ADMITTED IN 0 C. LAW OFFICES Beveridge & Diamond, P. C. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, 0. C. 20036 (zoz) aae*o2oo TELECOPIER (202; 26*0234 TELEX 3725936 BCVQtA WSH WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (202) 828-0281 iOi PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10178 (212; 557-3355 BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND ONE BRIDGE PLAZA FORT LEE, N- J- 0702* (200 985-8152 CARL CAROLEY OP COUNSEL JIM j, tozzi CONSULTING ECONOMIST George A. Fisher Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit United States Courthouse, Room 5411 333 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.. No, 85-1150: Errata to Brief for Intervenor The vinyl Institute Dear Mr. Fisher: Enclosed please find the original and 30 copies of a new first page to the Table of Contents,* the page filed with our brief inadvertently contained two typgraphical errors. Please distribute the new page to the judges. Copies have been served on counsel of record in this action. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely RB/bjd Enc. 768F Rob Brager CMA 015462 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................. ISSUES PRESENTED........................................................................................... INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... I. SECTION 112 PERMITS THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONSIDER TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY WHEN SETTING EMISSION STANDARDS SO LONG AS THE STANDARDS PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH AN AMPLE MARGIN OF SAFETY.................................................................................. A. By Considering Technological Feasibility, the Administrator May Rationally Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants .................................................................................. 1. Selection of appropriate standards. ... 2. Ensuring that an ample margin of safety is attained..................................................... 3. Mitigating adverse consequences of regulation............................................................... 4. Resolving enforcement issues............................. B. EPA Has the Same Authority to Consider -Technological Feasibility Under Section 112 That the States Have, and at Times Even EPA Has, Under Section 110.......................................................... .... . C. The Court Should Uphold the Vinyl Chloride Standard Because the Administrator's Consideration of Technological Feasibility Did Not Interfere with His Ability to Provide an Ample Margin of Safety to Protect the Public Health......................................... PAGE iii 1 1 8 9 9 9 9 14 16 18 20 24 -i- CMA 015463