Michigan v. EPA case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
213 F.3d
663 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner states and
state agencies petitioned for review of an order of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) challenging various aspects of the EPA's
decision to mandate that the states revise their state implementation
plans to mitigate the interstate transport of ozone precursors in
order to regulate national ambient air quality standards pursuant to
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq.
FACTS: Under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants, which states must implement, maintain, and enforce through state implementation plans (SIP). The EPA call for SIP revisions if it is determined inadequate to attain/maintain NAAQS. The EPA issued a final rule mandating that petitioner states revise their SIPs to mitigate interstate transport of the ozone precursor, nitrogen oxide (NOx), requiring covered upwind states to revise SIPs to comply with new emissions standards of 0.08 parts per million over an eight-hour period. Petitioners sought review. The final EPA rule regarding three petitioner states was vacated, the court holding that the EPA failed to demonstrate that the states contributed significantly to the nonattainment of acceptable NOx emissions in downwind states. Claims turning on definition changes were remanded, as the EPA failed to provide adequate notice of such definition changes. Other petitions were denied, since the EPA's scheme for uniform controls regarding NOx emissions were not arbitrary and capricious.
CONCLUSION: Court vacated Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)'s final rule regarding petitioner states; EPA failed to prove states' significant contribution to nonattainment of acceptable nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in downwind states. EPA failed to provide adequate notice of definition changes, warranting remand of two claims. Other petitions were denied; EPA's scheme for uniform controls regarding NOx emissions were not arbitrary and capricious.
FACTS: Under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants, which states must implement, maintain, and enforce through state implementation plans (SIP). The EPA call for SIP revisions if it is determined inadequate to attain/maintain NAAQS. The EPA issued a final rule mandating that petitioner states revise their SIPs to mitigate interstate transport of the ozone precursor, nitrogen oxide (NOx), requiring covered upwind states to revise SIPs to comply with new emissions standards of 0.08 parts per million over an eight-hour period. Petitioners sought review. The final EPA rule regarding three petitioner states was vacated, the court holding that the EPA failed to demonstrate that the states contributed significantly to the nonattainment of acceptable NOx emissions in downwind states. Claims turning on definition changes were remanded, as the EPA failed to provide adequate notice of such definition changes. Other petitions were denied, since the EPA's scheme for uniform controls regarding NOx emissions were not arbitrary and capricious.
CONCLUSION: Court vacated Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)'s final rule regarding petitioner states; EPA failed to prove states' significant contribution to nonattainment of acceptable nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in downwind states. EPA failed to provide adequate notice of definition changes, warranting remand of two claims. Other petitions were denied; EPA's scheme for uniform controls regarding NOx emissions were not arbitrary and capricious.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment