Use of science advisory boards in EPA rulemaking
What Are Science Advisory Boards (SABs)?
Science Advisory Boards are panels of independent scientists and experts appointed to review scientific data, methodologies, and risk assessments used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when developing environmental regulations. Their purpose is to ensure EPA decisions are based on sound, credible science.
SABs provide peer review and scientific guidance.
They help the EPA maintain transparency, credibility, and robustness in rulemaking.
SAB recommendations, while influential, are generally non-binding.
Their role becomes critical in controversial or complex rulemakings involving scientific uncertainty.
Legal and Administrative Framework
The SABs were established under the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, formalized by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Courts often review EPA actions for whether the agency adequately considered scientific evidence and whether SAB input was properly utilized.
Key Case Laws on SABs in EPA Rulemaking
1. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA (1976)
Context: EPA attempted to ban lead additives in gasoline based on health risks.
Issue: Whether the EPA's scientific basis for the ban was adequate.
Court Decision: The D.C. Circuit Court emphasized that EPA’s decisions must be based on sound science.
Relevance to SABs: Though before formal SAB establishment, this case set the precedent that scientific advisory input is critical and must be thoroughly considered in rulemaking.
2. Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene Case) (1980)
Context: EPA sought to regulate benzene emissions due to health risks.
Issue: Whether EPA’s risk assessments and scientific methodology justified the regulation.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled EPA must demonstrate that its scientific findings support that any significant risk exists and that regulation is necessary.
Relevance: Highlighted the importance of rigorous scientific review and, by extension, the critical role SABs play in providing such assessments.
3. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA (1995)
Context: Challenge to EPA’s ozone standards.
Issue: Whether EPA adequately considered scientific evidence and SAB recommendations.
Court Ruling: The court held EPA must consider the best available science and seriously evaluate SAB advice.
Relevance: Reinforced that SABs are key for credible scientific advice in regulatory decisions and courts will scrutinize EPA’s reliance on SAB input.
4. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Context: EPA set mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.
Issue: Whether EPA adequately evaluated costs and scientific evidence.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled EPA had to consider costs but acknowledged the agency’s scientific findings (including those informed by SABs) were valid.
Relevance: Highlighted that EPA’s science-driven decisions, often shaped by SAB input, are generally upheld if they follow proper administrative procedures.
5. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (2018)
Context: EPA proposed weakening fuel economy standards; plaintiffs argued EPA ignored SAB recommendations.
Issue: Whether EPA disregarded SAB advice on scientific issues.
Court Ruling: The court emphasized EPA must provide a reasoned explanation if it diverges from SAB conclusions.
Relevance: Courts expect EPA to transparently address SAB advice, ensuring scientific integrity in rulemaking.
6. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014)
Context: Challenges to EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases.
Issue: Whether EPA’s science, including SAB input on climate risks, justified regulatory scope.
Decision: Court upheld EPA's authority, relying in part on SAB-reviewed science.
Relevance: SABs lend critical scientific credibility that helps defend EPA regulations against legal challenges.
Summary of SAB Roles Highlighted by Cases:
Scientific Credibility: Courts require EPA to base rules on credible scientific findings, often reviewed by SABs.
Transparency: EPA must transparently document how SAB advice is incorporated or why it’s rejected.
Non-binding but Influential: SABs do not dictate EPA decisions but heavily influence scientific underpinning.
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts carefully evaluate if EPA adequately considered SAB input to ensure reasoned agency action.
Why SABs Matter in EPA Rulemaking
They prevent arbitrary or capricious decisions by providing independent expertise.
SABs help navigate scientific uncertainty by reviewing methodologies and data.
They ensure compliance with Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements for reasoned decision-making.
SAB involvement strengthens public trust in EPA rules by demonstrating rigorous scientific vetting.
Conclusion
Science Advisory Boards are essential components of EPA’s rulemaking process. The courts have repeatedly underscored that EPA must meaningfully consider SAB input to justify its science-based regulations. Failure to do so can lead to legal challenges and invalidation of rules. Through the cases above, we see that SABs help anchor environmental regulation in sound science, enhancing legal durability and policy effectiveness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments