Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9 2018 64. Kruse, E. Case Comment: North Carolina vs. Environmental Protection Agency. Harv. Envtl. Law Rev. 2009, 33, 283–296. 65. Clean Air Act. U.S. Code, Section 7410(a)(2)(D), Title 42, 2011. 66. Clean Air Act. U.S. Code, Section 7409(b)(1), Title 42, 2011. 67. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association vs. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.; 463 U.S. 29, 1983. 68. By reinterpretation of authority in this context, the authors are referring to an EPA assertion that its interpretation of a statute involves a new reliance on some factor not named in the statute (e.g., cumulative risk assessment)—especially where the Agency has not relied on that factor in past interpretations. 69. Maislin Industries, U.S. Inc. vs. Primary Steel Inc.; 497 U.S. 116, 1990. 70. In the Maislin Industries case, the Supreme Court explained that “once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination … and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning” ([69], p. 131). 71. Smiley vs. Citibank (S.D.), N.A.; 517 U.S. 735, 1996. 72. Am. Farm Bureau Fedn. vs. EPA; 559 F.3d 512, D.C. Cir. 2009. 73. New York vs. EPA; 413 F.3d 3, D.C. Cir. 2005. 74. Buente, D.T., Jr.; Gerard, W.E.; Visser, J.F. Limited oversight: The role of the Federal courts vis- à-vis the Environmental Protection Agency in air pollution control under the Clean Air Act. Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 2011, 21, 309–345. 75. In the New York vs. EPA case, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s decision to alter its definition of emissions increases for New Source Review under the Clean Air Act [73]. 76. Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. Code, Section 706(2)(A), Title 5, 2011. 77. Lead Industry Ass’n vs. EPA; 647 F.2d 1130, D.C. Cir. 1980. 78. City of Waukesha vs. EPA; 320 F.3d 228, D.C. Cir. 2003. 79. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides vs. EPA; 544 F.3d 1043, 9th Cir. 2008. 80. Coalition of Battery Recyclers Ass’n vs. EPA; 604 F.3d 613, D.C. Cir. 2010. 81. Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. Code, Sections 501 et seq., Title 5, 2011. 82. Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. Code, Sections 553(b)-(c), Title 5, 2011. 83. Note that under the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA must provide adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on such a methodology change [80,81]. 84. Tucson Herpetological Society vs. Salazar; 566 F.3d 870, 9th Cir. 2009. 85. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance vs. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services; 475 F.3d 1136, 9th Cir. 2007. 86. Marsh vs. Oregon Natural Resources Council; 490 U.S. 360, 1989. 87. Miami-Dade County vs. U.S. EPA; 529 F.3d 1049, 11th Cir. 2008. 88. Mossville Environmental Action Now vs. EPA; 370 F.3d 1232, D.C. Cir. 2005. 89. Center for Auto Safety vs. Peck; 751 F.2d 1336, D.C. Cir. 1985. (Wright, J., dissenting) 90. American Iron & Steel Inst. vs. EPA; 115 F.3d 979, D.C. Cir. 1997. 91. Perhac, R.M., Jr. Does risk aversion make a case for conservatism? RISK: Health, Safety Environ. 1996, 7, 297–304.