United States DC Circuit

The "Haze Rule", which requires States to impose best available retrofit technology (BART) on large stationary pollution sources, challenged by industry petitioners as inappropriately requiring States to apply BART to too many sources, and by environmental petitioner as improperly allowing States to exempt too many sources from BART, is affirmed against both sets of challenges as a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act section 169A.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/07/2006
• Decided 12/12/2006
• Published 12/12/2006

Judges

• Before:  GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Court

• United States DC Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Peter S. Glaser argued the cause for industry petitioners Utility Air Regulatory Group in Case No. 05-1353 and Center for Energy and Economic Development in Case No. 05-1357.   With him on the briefs were Paul M. Seby, Norman W. Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, and Mel S. Schulze., Ann Brewster Weeks argued the cause for environmental petitioner National Parks Conservation Association in Case No. 05-1354.   With her on the briefs were Jonathan F. Lewis and David W. Marshall.


• For Appellees:
  
• Pamela S. Tonglao and Ammie Roseman-Orr, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent.   With them on the brief were John C. Cruden, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and M. Lea Anderson, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Peter S. Glaser, Paul M. Seby, Norman W. Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, and Mel S. Schulze were on the brief for industry intervenors Utility Air Regulatory Group and Center for Energy and Economic Development in support of respondent in Case No. 05-1354.