The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently re-evaluated its January 2017 mid-term evaluation final determination of greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles, initially set in 2012. This re-evaluation culminated in an agency decision that it would revise those greenhouse gas emission standards. The EPA's reversal could lead to a legal battle with California over its Clean Air Act waiver.
Environmental non-governmental organisations recently filed a petition for review with the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to end its 'once in, always in' interpretation of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. One of the plaintiffs also issued a report alleging that the policy's reversal could lead to a large increase in hazardous air pollutant emissions from major sources.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator recently issued a memorandum and accompanying revised Delegation of Authority 2-43 retaining the EPA headquarters' authority to make certain jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act Section 404 discharge of dredged or fill material permitting programme. Jurisdictional determinations are important because they delineate whether, and to what extent, a water body is subject to Section 404 permitting.
The assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance recently issued to staff a memorandum establishing an interim process for providing her with early notice of referral of matters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for civil judicial enforcement. The memorandum requests that EPA case teams contemplating a DOJ referral brief the relevant regional administrator or the assistant administrator before making the referral.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia recently upheld a portion of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regional haze rule that allows states to treat compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule as better-than-best available retrofit technology for states participating in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Challenges to the EPA's interpretation of the rule came from two sides: environmental non-governmental organisations and power companies joined by trade groups.