Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Husqvarna AB v. EPA

ELR Citation: 31 ELR 20867
Nos. No. 00-1270, 254 F.3d 195/(D.C. Cir., 06/29/2001)

The court denies an engine manufacturer's petition to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Clean Air Act (CAA) Phase 2 emissions standards for new nonroad spark-ignition handheld engines. The court first holds that the record shows that EPA complied with CAA §213(a)(3) and reasonably arrived at the best regulatory standard by ascertaining the greatest degree of emission reduction technologically achievable while giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Moreover, substantial evidence supports EPA's cost determinations, EPA's consideration of safety issues, the EPA-selected phase-in period, and EPA's determination that the Phase 2 standards can be achieved through application of several identified technologies. In addition, EPA complied with CAA §307(d)(3)'s procedural requirements. The manufacturer and others had ample time to comment on the technologies proposed by the rule, EPA gave the manufacturer fair notice of the subjects and issues involved in the rule, and even if EPA did commit procedural error, the manufacturer failed to show that it was so serious and of such relevance to that rule that the rule would have been significantly changed if such error had not been made.

Counsel for Petitioners
Nancy S. Bryson
Crowell & Moring
1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20004
(202) 624-2500

Counsel for Respondent
Pamela S. Tonglao
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Henderson, J. Before Tatel and Garland, JJ.