Agency finding that it was established that a certain emission was not a carcinogen was not based on substantial evidence, as the agency merely searched the literature for proof that it was carcinogenic.
Agency use without a safety margin of a "low confidence" metric beneath comparable state regulations presents an issue for trial.
Petitioners were not required to demonstrate that any given adjustment of the data was unreasonable; the agency needed to explain its rationale for the adjustments.
Agency discretion in setting pollution levels for each category can't be given to the manufacturer by defining several levels for each category; the statute requires the agency to set the levels.
Agency use of a synthetic area source to set the allowable levels for the category wasn't contrary to statute, as the source is within the category as defined.
As industry didn't sufficiently explain why some sources performed surprisingly well, agency's exclusion of some sources wasn't arbitrary or capricious.
Substantial evidence for agency finding that coming innovations will allow industry to meet standard without raw material substitutions.
Tile-making organization does not have sufficient Article III standing to intervene in judicial review of smokestack rulemaking absent some showing that its members will be harmed by the pending rule.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B42E4D7405452F66852582C200525ACE/$file/15-1487.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.