Don't Knock EPA's Knack for NAAQS

by Daniel Farber

July 23, 2012

Cross-posted from Legal Planet.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit decided American Petroleum Institute (API) v. EPA, an interesting case dealing with nitrogen oxide (NO2) levels. The standard is supposed to include a margin of safety.Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for airborne substances that endanger human health or welfare. EPA set such a standard for NO2 in 1971 and finally got around to revising the standard in 2010.

The innovation in the new NO2 standard is that it’s a one-hour standard covering peak exposures, and all air monitors in an area must hit the standard. The previous standard was an annual average, so local, temporary peaks could be quite a bit higher. The evidence showed that the earlier average standard did not protect people against respiratory problems from spikes in nitric oxides, particularly if they were near freeways.

Two industry groups sued to overturn the new standard, but it was unanimously upheld by a panel containing two very conservative judges and one more liberal one. The court was distinctly unimpressed by the industry claims. In response to a claim that EPA violated its own rules because it relied on a study that wasn’t peer-reviewed, the court wrote, “Perhaps the API should have had its brief peer-reviewed.” The court faulted the industry brief for deleting crucial language when quoting an EPA document, among other errors.

Notably, the court flagged a common error in using statistics. Industry relied on a study that found no statistically significant relationship between concentrations of NO2 and health effects. According to industry, the study showed that there was no health effect. The court pointed out, however, the study did not prove that there was no health effect; it merely failed to detect one. Although people commonly confuse lack of evidence of an effect with proof that there is no effect, there is a fundamental difference.

It’s easier to understand the difference in a more everyday context. If you have an alarm system, there’s a tradeoff in deciding how sensitive the system should be. If you have a really sensitive system, it may often generate false alarms but is guaranteed to detect an intruder. If your system is less sensitive, you’ll have fewer false alarms but an intruder may go undetected. The fact that the alarm hasn’t gone off is some evidence that there’s no burglar, but if you’re really anxious to avoid false alarms, your system may well be missing actual intruders.

The same is true of statistical tests. A statistical test may fail to detect a relationship either because it doesn’t exist or because the test isn’t sensitive enough. Statisticians talk about Type I and Type II errors, but they’re really just talking about the same tradeoffs as with burglar alarms between false alarms and missed intruders.

The court didn’t rely on this point alone, but also explained that EPA had plausible criticisms of the study’s methodology. Thus, it was reasonable to EPA to rely on the so-called non-peer reviewed study that industry complained about. I say “so-called non-peer reviewed” because EPA just updated a published study that had been peer-reviewed, and its update was reviewed by the Science Advisory Board, a form of peer-review.

As far as I can tell, the industry just wanted the court to second-guess the agency’s scientific judgments. But it’s not the court’s job to play amateur scientist. EPA clearly gave plausible explanations for its expert judgments, and that’s all the law requires.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Daniel Farber

Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law, Director of the California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and Chair, Energy & Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

Promoting Energy Innovation

Farber | Apr 13, 2018 | Energy

Climate Change in the Courts

Farber | Apr 02, 2018 | Climate Change

Trump, EPA, and the Anti-Regulatory State

Farber | Jan 25, 2018 | Environmental Policy

The Off-Switch Is Inside the Fenceline

Farber | Dec 27, 2017 | Energy

Looking Back on Lucas

Farber | Dec 11, 2017 | Regulatory Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015