National Association of Home Builders v. EPA. Pays/Territoire États-Unis d'Amérique Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jui 22, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Juge Rogers, Garland, Williams. Numéro de référence No. 10-1183 Langue Anglais Sujet Déchets et substances dangereuses, Environnement gén. Résumé In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued rules regulating renovation and remodeling activities that create health hazards associated with exposure to lead-based paint. The rules exempted owner-occupied housing from regulations designed to reduce exposure to lead paint in dust and construction debris if the homeowner certified that no pregnant women or children under six lived in the house where renovations were taking place. In 2010, the EPA amended the rules to eliminate the exemption. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and other trade associations challenged the amended regulations, claiming that the amendment was (1) arbitrary and capricious, in contravention of the Administrative Procedure Act and (2) that the EPA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it did not convene a small business advocacy review panel to assess the impact of the amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the petition for review. The court found that the amendment withstood scrutiny under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, even though it reversed a prior agency position without offering new evidence to support the change. Applying FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), the court held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not require the EPA to meet a heightened standard when it changed its regulatory position, so long as the revised position was permissible under the relevant statute and the agency provided an adequate explanation for the change. The court concluded that the EPA was within its discretion to reevaluate its policy without gathering new evidence, and that it had adequately explained its decision to eliminate the exemption. The court next rejected the argument that the amendment was arbitrary and capricious because its costs outweighed its befits. The court determined that, while the EPA was statutorily required to consider the economic consequences of its actions, it was not subject to a requirement that benefits outweigh costs. The court found that the EPA had made a reasonable cost-benefit assessment and NAHB had not offered a justification for questioning it. Texte intégral COU-159567.pdf