- Posted December 29, 2014
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Court of Appeals rejects two ozone regulations

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a victory for environmental groups, a federal appeals court rejected two Environmental Protection Agency regulations that loosened requirements for achieving compliance with more protective ozone standards.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said EPA cannot increase the amount of compliance time by an additional year and cannot revoke ozone requirements for highway projects.
The court said the two EPA regulations implementing the 2008 ozone standards exceed the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.
Writing for the majority, appeals Judge Sri Srinivasan said the EPA's action was untethered to Congress's approach. In addition, Srinivasan wrote, EPA identifies no provision under the Clean Air Act specifically authorizing revocation of the highway requirements. Srinivasan, a nominee of President Barack Obama, was joined by Judge David Tatel, a nominee of President Bill Clinton.
In dissent, appeals Judge A. Raymond Randolph said the court's decision and its reasoning "are, I believe, mistaken" and that EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is permissible.
The Natural Resources Defense Council brought the challenges to the EPA's regulations.
Published: Mon, Dec 29, 2014
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Oscar vs. Jeff: Trial lawyers and appellate counsel do different jobs, and it may show in their writing
- ‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial
- ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech
- After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases
- ‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges
- Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone