Case Title: Gasoline Marketers of VT, Inc. v. VT Agency of Natural Resources

Citation: 169 Vt. 504, 739 A.2d 1230

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gasoline Marketers of VT, Inc. v. Agency of Natural Resources (98-417); 
169 Vt. 504; 739 A.2d 1230

[Filed 27-Aug-1999]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the  Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-417

Gasoline Marketers of 	                         Supreme Court
Vermont, Inc., et al.
        	                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Washington Superior Court

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources	         March Term, 1999

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       R. Bradford Fawley, Robert A. Miller, and Timothy E. Copeland of Downs
  Rachlin & Martin, PLLC, Brattleboro, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Ron Shems, Leslie Jones and
  Elizabeth Lord, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for
  Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Zimmerman, D.J., 
          Specially Assigned

       JOHNSON, J.   The question presented by this case is whether the
  Agency of Natural  Resources (ANR) adequately considered the economic
  effect on small businesses when it  promulgated regulations to control
  vapor emissions at gasoline pumps.  Appellant Gasoline  Marketers of
  Vermont, Inc. (GMOV) contends that the regulations are invalid under the 
  Vermont Administrative Procedures Act (VAPA), 3 V.S.A. §§ 801-849, because
  ANR defined a  "small business" as a business that sells less than 400,000
  gallons of gas per year, rather than as  a business with twenty or fewer
  full-time employees, the definition provided by VAPA.  See 3  V.S.A. §
  801(b)(12).  We conclude that ANR's definition is better calibrated to
  assess the  economic impact of the regulation at issue and that the agency
  has, therefore, demonstrated 

 

  compliance with the statute.  We affirm. 

       GMOV, a consortium of gasoline marketers, appeals from a decision in
  favor of ANR on  cross-motions for summary judgment.  The parties concede
  there are no contested issues of fact;  therefore, the only question is
  whether ANR is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which we  review de
  novo.  See Bacon v. Lascelles, 165 Vt. 214, 218,