Office of Air and Radiation rulemaking
🔷 1. What is the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)?
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is a division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is responsible for regulating air pollution, radiation exposure, and climate change impacts. OAR’s main objectives are:
Setting and enforcing air quality standards.
Regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Overseeing radiation safety, including radon and nuclear-related concerns.
Developing programs under laws like the Clean Air Act (CAA).
🔷 2. Rulemaking Authority
OAR’s rulemaking authority is rooted in the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, which was significantly amended in 1977 and 1990.
Major Functions:
Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants like ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and particulate matter.
Regulating stationary sources (power plants, factories) and mobile sources (cars, trucks).
Implementing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
Addressing hazardous air pollutants (air toxics).
Crafting climate-related rules like CO₂ emission limits.
🔷 3. Detailed Case Law Involving OAR Rulemaking
Below are several landmark cases that have shaped or challenged OAR’s regulatory authority and rulemaking.
✅ Case 1: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts:
Several states, including Massachusetts, petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA (under the Bush administration) declined, arguing that CO₂ and other GHGs were not “air pollutants” under the CAA.
Issue:
Can the EPA regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that GHGs are air pollutants under the CAA.
Ordered the EPA to determine whether GHG emissions from motor vehicles endanger public health or welfare.
Impact:
Landmark decision that affirmed OAR’s authority to regulate GHGs.
Led to the 2009 Endangerment Finding and later vehicle emission standards.
✅ Case 2: Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
Facts:
After Massachusetts v. EPA, the OAR implemented the Tailoring Rule, requiring permits for major sources of GHG emissions.
Industry groups challenged the rule, arguing it exceeded EPA’s authority.
Issue:
Can the EPA require GHG permits for new or modified facilities?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled EPA can regulate GHGs from sources already subject to Clean Air Act permits.
But EPA could not rewrite statutory thresholds to include smaller sources (EPA had set its own emission thresholds).
Impact:
The ruling limited the scope of EPA's permit program but affirmed its authority over large emitters.
Forced OAR to refine how it applied GHG regulations.
✅ Case 3: Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)
Facts:
EPA/OAR issued a rule limiting mercury and toxic emissions from power plants (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – MATS).
Industry groups sued, claiming EPA failed to consider costs when deciding to regulate.
Issue:
Must EPA consider costs when deciding whether regulation is “appropriate and necessary”?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled EPA must consider costs at the initial stage of deciding whether to regulate.
EPA had deferred cost analysis until a later stage, which the Court said was improper.
Impact:
Did not vacate the rule but sent it back for proper cost consideration.
Underscored the importance of economic analysis in rulemaking.
✅ Case 4: West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Facts:
EPA issued the Clean Power Plan (CPP) under the Obama administration, targeting carbon emissions from existing power plants using a “generation shifting” strategy (shifting energy production from coal to renewables).
States and coal companies challenged the rule.
Issue:
Did EPA have the authority to implement broad generation-shifting under Section 111(d) of the CAA?
Ruling:
Supreme Court ruled in favor of West Virginia.
Held that EPA exceeded its statutory authority, invoking the major questions doctrine (agency action with vast economic/political significance requires clear Congressional authorization).
Impact:
Significantly curbed OAR’s ability to regulate GHGs without explicit legislative backing.
Changed the landscape of environmental rulemaking, requiring clear Congressional direction for large-scale climate policy.
✅ Case 5: American Lung Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2021)
Facts:
EPA under Trump repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, which had weaker emissions standards.
Environmental groups and states sued.
Issue:
Did the ACE Rule meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act?
Ruling:
D.C. Circuit struck down the ACE Rule, stating EPA misinterpreted the Clean Air Act and had ignored important considerations.
Opened the door for EPA to propose new rules.
Impact:
Highlighted the tension between deregulation efforts and statutory mandates.
Reinforced the role of courts in reviewing scientific and statutory grounding of environmental rules.
✅ Case 6: Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Facts:
Industry challenged the EPA’s setting of a NAAQS for lead, arguing that it was overly stringent.
Issue:
Could EPA set standards based solely on public health without considering costs?
Ruling:
Court upheld EPA’s authority to set NAAQS based solely on health science, not cost.
Impact:
One of the earliest affirmations of science-based regulation.
Established precedent for EPA's health-first approach in setting air quality standards.
🔷 4. Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Legal Principle | Description | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| GHGs as Pollutants | Greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the CAA | Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) |
| Cost Consideration | EPA must consider costs at the appropriate regulatory stage | Michigan v. EPA (2015) |
| Major Questions Doctrine | Broad economic or political actions need clear legislative authority | West Virginia v. EPA (2022) |
| Science over Costs for NAAQS | EPA can set air quality standards based solely on health data | Lead Industries v. EPA (1980) |
| Limitations on Tailoring Rules | EPA cannot rewrite statutory thresholds without authorization | UARG v. EPA (2014) |
🔷 5. Conclusion
The Office of Air and Radiation plays a critical role in shaping national environmental policy through its rulemaking under the Clean Air Act. Its actions have frequently been challenged in court, shaping the boundaries of its authority. The courts have supported scientific regulation and recognized GHGs as pollutants, but have also set limits on regulatory overreach, especially in climate change policy.
These cases collectively show the balancing act between environmental protection, statutory interpretation, economic impacts, and judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments