Virginia 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?
108 F.3d 1397 (D.C.
Cir. 1997) |
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
rule opponents sought review of a rule from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which declared the ozone reduction
implementation plans of 12 individual states in a region
"substantially inadequate" under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
and required the states to revise their plans and enact the Low
Emission Vehicle program (LEV). Respondent rule proponents defended
the EPA's authority to enforce the rule.
FACTS: The opponents challenged the EPA's rule as unsupported by the record, contrary to the CAA, and constitutionally defective. The court vacated the EPA's rule and made the following holdings: 1) the EPA conditioned approval of the states' revised implementation plans on the states' adoption of the LEV, because the offered alternative could not realistically be implemented; 2) section 110 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7410, did not give the EPA authority to condition approval of a state's plan on the state's adoption of control measures chosen by the EPA because such a reading went against the plain language and legislative history of the section; 3) section 184 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7511, did give the EPA authority to condition approval of a state's plan on the state's adoption of particular control measures; 4) CAA §§ 177 and 202, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 7507 and 7521, read together, forbade the EPA from conditioning its approval of a state's implementation plan on the state's adoption of the LEV to limit motor vehicle emissions, because the states retained that discretion under CAA § 202.
CONCLUSION: The court found in favor of the opponents and vacated the EPA's rule that required the states to revise their plans and enact the LEV because the EPA did not have the legal authority to make such a requirement. The court also held that the EPA's declaration that the states' implementation plans were "substantially inadequate" could not stand because the EPA had made the declaration based on its belief that it could mandate the LEV.
FACTS: The opponents challenged the EPA's rule as unsupported by the record, contrary to the CAA, and constitutionally defective. The court vacated the EPA's rule and made the following holdings: 1) the EPA conditioned approval of the states' revised implementation plans on the states' adoption of the LEV, because the offered alternative could not realistically be implemented; 2) section 110 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7410, did not give the EPA authority to condition approval of a state's plan on the state's adoption of control measures chosen by the EPA because such a reading went against the plain language and legislative history of the section; 3) section 184 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7511, did give the EPA authority to condition approval of a state's plan on the state's adoption of particular control measures; 4) CAA §§ 177 and 202, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 7507 and 7521, read together, forbade the EPA from conditioning its approval of a state's implementation plan on the state's adoption of the LEV to limit motor vehicle emissions, because the states retained that discretion under CAA § 202.
CONCLUSION: The court found in favor of the opponents and vacated the EPA's rule that required the states to revise their plans and enact the LEV because the EPA did not have the legal authority to make such a requirement. The court also held that the EPA's declaration that the states' implementation plans were "substantially inadequate" could not stand because the EPA had made the declaration based on its belief that it could mandate the LEV.
---
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