ELR Citation: ELR 20129
No(s). CA 3-82-1056-G (N.D. Tex. Jul 10, 1984)

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision to treat information describing plaintiff's plant as "emission data" under the Clean Air Act for purposes of determining the need for confidentiality in handling the data is arbitrary and capricious. While the Agency's decisions are entitled to a presumption of regularity, they still must be explained. The record states EPA's conclusion that the plant descriptions were emissions data because they are necessary to determine the amount of emissions using a materials balance calculation, but the record offers no support for the premise that the calculation is the only practical way to determine the amount of pollution emitted. Since the record contains no discussion of alternatives or of the factors EPA did consider, the decision is arbitrary and capricious under the test announced by the Supreme Court in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Robert M. Cohan, Patrick R. Cowlishaw
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1101 San Jacinto Tower, Dallas TX 75201
(214) 754-0100

Shira Modell
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1300 19th St. NW, Washington DC 20036
(202) 828-1300

Counsel for Defendant
Mary Anne Moore, Ass't U.S. Attorney
1100 Commerce St. RM 16G28, Dallas TX 75242
(214) 767-0951

Catherine A. Cotter
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-4438

Patrick Rankin, Ass't Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
1201 Elm St., Dallas TX 75270
(214) 767-2600