Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  556 U. S. ____ (2009) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

to  the  effluent  reduction  benefits  to  be  achieved.” 
§1314(b)(1)(B).  In applying the BCT test it is instructed to 
consider “the reasonableness of the relationship between the 
costs  of  attaining  a  reduction  in  effluents  and  the  effluent 
reduction  benefits  derived.” 
  §1314(b)(4)(B)  (emphasis 
added).    And  in  applying  the  BATEA  and  BADT  tests  the
EPA  is  instructed  to  consider  the  “cost  of  achieving  such
effluent  reduction.”    §§1314(b)(2)(B),  1316(b)(1)(B).  There 
is no such elucidating language applicable to the BTA test 
at issue here.  To facilitate comparison, the texts of these 
five tests, the clarifying factors applicable to them, and the 
entities to which they apply are set forth in the Appendix, 
infra. 

The  Second  Circuit,  in  rejecting  the  EPA’s  use  of  cost-
benefit analysis, relied in part on the propositions that (1)
cost-benefit  analysis  is  precluded  under  the  BATEA  and 
BADT  tests;  and  (2)  that,  insofar  as  the  permissibility  of 
cost-benefit analysis is concerned, the BTA test (the one at 
issue here) is to be treated the same as those two.  See 475 
F. 3d, at 98.  It is not obvious to us that the first of these 
propositions is correct, but we need not pursue that point,
since  we  assuredly  do  not  agree  with  the  second.    It  is 
certainly  reasonable  for  the  agency  to  conclude  that  the
BTA  test  need  not  be  interpreted  to  permit  only  what
those  other  two  tests  permit.    Its  text  is  not  identical  to 
theirs.  It  has  the  relatively  modest  goal  of  “minimizing
adverse  environmental  impact”  as  compared  with  the 
BATEA’s  goal  of  “eliminating  the  discharge  of  all  pollut-
ants.”  And  it  is  unencumbered  by  specified  statutory 
factors of the sort provided for those other two tests, which
omission can reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the 
EPA  is  accorded  greater  discretion  in  determining  its 
precise content.

Respondents  and  the  dissent  argue  that  the  mere  fact
that  §1326(b)  does  not  expressly  authorize  cost-benefit 
analysis for the BTA test, though it does so for two of the