This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

EDF and others (Ps) challenged a final standard adopted by the EPA. Ps claimed that there is evidence to support the standard that was adopted but that EPA should have and would have adopted a stricter standard if it had not engaged in post comment period irregularities and succumbed to political pressure. Ps claim that EPA should have adopted a .55lbs/MBtu limit instead of the less strict 1.2lbs/MBtu. Ps objected to comments filed after the close of the official comment period and meeting which took place after the close of the official comment period. EPA had accepted over 300 comments after the close of the comment period and entered them on its administrative docket without reopening the comment period or by notifying anyone involved that the comments had even been received. Ps also objected to nine different meetings held after the comment period had been closed. Ps claimed that these ex parte communications were both improper and violated P’s right to due process.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.