1. Revisiting the Impact of Judicial Review on Agency Rulemakings: An Empirical Investigation Wendy Wagner University of Texas School of Law

3. Interest Group Engagement in EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards (N=90).

4. Fate of Litigated Cases over HAPs rules

5. Basis for Challenge (step 1 vs. step 2)

6. Fate of Litigated Cases over HAPs rules

7. Agency Repair of Remanded Rules 2 Years since remand. Only National Lime was repromulgated as a final rule. 10864 National Lime Arteva Mossville 1. Sierra Club 2. NRDC (PR)

8. Interest Group Engagement in EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards (N=90).

9. Pre-proposed rule engagement by interest groups

10. N=90 (EPA air toxic rules) in Wagner, Barnes, & Peters (forthcoming 2011) Notice and Comment Activity for all 90 Air Toxic Rules

12. Interest Group Engagement in EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards (N=90).

13. Fate of Litigated Cases over HAPs rules

14. Judicial Review Reality (?) HAPS rules with diverse Interest group engagement HAPS rules with monolithic Interest group engagement Fits “interest group representation model Fits traditional model

15. Example of the Traditional Model? HAPS rule for polymer manufacturers 1. No public interest participation in the rulemaking. 2. Industry (individually and in associations) engaged in * more than 450 contacts before the proposed rule was even published. * submitted 36 industry comments (one state commmented) 3. In response to comments, EPA made 20 changes that further weakened the rule and rejected only six comments. No significant comments were made urging strengthening of the rule. 4. EPA made two rounds of revisions weakening the rule in response to petitions for reconsideration. 5. Still unhappy, two individual industry petitioners appealed the rule to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the EPA arbitrarily failed to consider the excessive costs of the monitoring requirements. In Arteva v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit concluded that EPA's rule was arbitrary and the rule was vacated and remanded to the agency in 2004. The rule has not been repaired and a proposed revised rule has not been issued.

17. EPA’s Effort to Repair Remanded Cement Kiln Rule Received over 1000 comments Received at least 1 petition for reconsideration Received over 3000 comments

18. Normative View Of Role of Regulatory Agencies * Advance Public Interest (ballast against politics) * Technical Experts Corresponding Institutional Design * Solicit input from affected parties * Affected parties deploy courts to check deviation from statute or facts

19. Normative View Of Role of Regulatory Agencies * Advance Public Interest (ballast against politics) * Technical Experts Corresponding Institutional Design * Solicit input from affected parties (pluralism) * Courts deployed by affected parties to check deviation from statute or facts Reality or

20. Air Toxic Emission Standards –Required in 1990 Amendments to Clean Air Act – EPA sets emissions limits based on the best (12%) achievable reductions for 100+ categories of industry – Each rule includes emission standards; monitoring; recordkeeping; & compliance deadlines.

21. Questions 1.Does a diverse set of affected parties engage in the rules? 2.Do the courts’ rulings matter to the agency? 3.Are there unintended costs that fall from judicial review?

22. Questions 1.Does a diverse set of affected parties engage in the rules? 2.Do the courts’ rulings matter to the agency? 3.Are there unintended costs that fall from judicial review?

23. Agency Repair of Remanded Rules 2 Years between remand and promulgation of revised rule (rules remanded in red have not been repromulgated) 10864 National Lime Arteva Mossville 1. Sierra Club 2. NRDC (PR)

24. "Rule of Law" constraints imposed on EPA’s HAPS emission standards by the case law 1.“No control” standard for individual hazardous substances is not an option under the statute; EPA must set emission limits for all HAPs. 2.EPA must measure "actual emissions" from best performers to set emission standards. Achievability (i.e., can all firms meet those limits) is not a consideration under the terms of the statute. 3.Variability cannot be benchmarked against the low performers to determine industry capabilities. 4. Compliance extensions cannot be granted by EPA outside of statutory deadlines. 5. EPA cannot create a low-risk exemption for major sources under Section 112. 6. Non-technological mechanisms for control need to be included in EPA’s analysis of firms’ capabilities for emissions reductions. EPA cannot consider only technological mechanisms of control and ignore other methods of limiting HAPs emissions, such as changing inputs. 7. EPA cannot substitute work practice standards for emission standards without satisfying the statutory criteria.

25. "Rule of Law" constraints imposed on EPA’s HAPS emission standards by the case law 1.“No control” standard for individual hazardous substances is not an option under the statute; EPA must set emission limits for all HAPs. 2.EPA must measure "actual emissions" from best performers to set emission standards. Achievability (i.e., can all firms meet those limits) is not a consideration under the terms of the statute. 3.Variability cannot be benchmarked against the low performers to determine industry capabilities. 4. Compliance extensions cannot be granted by EPA outside of statutory deadlines. 5. EPA cannot create a low-risk exemption for major sources under Section 112. 6. Non-technological mechanisms for control need to be included in EPA’s analysis of firms’ capabilities for emissions reductions. EPA cannot consider only technological mechanisms of control and ignore other methods of limiting HAPs emissions, such as changing inputs. 7. EPA cannot substitute work practice standards for emission standards without satisfying the statutory criteria.

26. From EPA, “Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT and Turbines MACT: Using Risk to Delist Certain Subcategories - Briefing for Administrator Levitt,” EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048-0207 (logged in 9/28/2004), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048- 0207.http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048- 0207

28. Questions 1.Does a diverse set of affected parties engage in the rules? 2.Do the courts’ rulings matter to the agency? 3.Are there unintended costs that fall from judicial review?

29. Costs Expended in Rule Settlement Involved 24 discrete changes

30. Public Interest Involvement in EPA’s Air Toxic Rules

31. Judicial Review Reality (?) HAPS rules with diverse Interest group engagement HAPS rules with monolithic Interest group engagement Fits “interest group representation model Fits traditional model

32. Example of the Traditional Model? HAPS rule for polymer manufacturers 1. No public interest participation in the rulemaking. 2. Industry (individually and in associations) engaged in * more than 450 contacts before the proposed rule was even published. * submitted 36 industry comments (one state commmented) 3. In response to comments, EPA made 20 changes that further weakened the rule and rejected only six comments. No significant comments were made urging strengthening of the rule. 4. EPA made two rounds of revisions weakening the rule in response to petitions for reconsideration. 5. Still unhappy, two individual industry petitioners appealed the rule to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the EPA arbitrarily failed to consider the excessive costs of the monitoring requirements. In Arteva v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit concluded that EPA's rule was arbitrary and the rule was vacated and remanded to the agency in 2004. No changes have been made

33. Possible Reforms Interim (low risk) 1.Greater public interest group strategizing 2.Shore up remedies 3.Track engagement by affected parties at all stages Blueprint-level (if future research confirms problems) 1.Pluralistic gap fillers built into architecture 2.Penalize nonacquiescence 3.Tweak judicial review to focus on process as well as substance

34. Possible Reforms Interim (low risk) 1.Greater public interest group strategizing 2.Shore up remedies 3.Track engagement by affected parties at all stages Blueprint-level (if future research confirms problems) 1.Pluralistic gap fillers built into architecture 2.Penalize nonacquiescence 3.Tweak judicial review to focus on process as well as substance 4.Limit ex parte contacts