After Congress decided to set stricter limits on harmful car emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was directed to devise a test for all automobiles to determine if they were in compliance with the stringent new emissions standard. The EPA, already stretched thin by many preexisting projects, enacted the CAP 2000 regulation, which requires all automobile manufacturers to devise their own tests for their automobiles. The EPA hopes this will do three things: cut down on the cost of producing its own test, force automobile manufacturers to share in the cost of producing cleaner cars, and result in an even more effective test for emissions.
Ethyl Corporation produces gasoline additives. Because these tests will now be devised behind closed doors at automobile companies, Ethyl will have a more difficult time producing additives that will pass emission standards. Ethyl sued the EPA, challenging the CAP regulation. What arguments should Ethyl advance to persuade the court to strike down the EPA regulations? How else might Ethyl affect the EPA’s rulemaking? [Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2002).]