We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that Subpart 2 clearly controls the implementation of revised ozone NAAQS, see 175 F.3d, at 10481050, because we find the statute to some extent ambiguous.
We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that Subpart 2 clearly controls the implementation of revised ozone NAAQS, see 175 F. 3d, at 1048-1050, because we find the statute to some extent ambiguous.
And last month, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt opted to abandon a plan to delay implementation of an ozone ambient air quality rule rather than respond to a lawsuit brought by 15 states.
His administration has attempted to delay the implementation of new ozone standards adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2015, and it is seeking cuts to the EPA's budget that would severely compromise the agency's ability to enforce all air quality standards.
(3) The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the EPAs interpretation of Part D of Title I of the CAA, relating to the implementation of the revised ozone NAAQS.
(3) The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the EPA's interpretation of Part D of Title I of the CAA, relating to the implementation of the revised ozone NAAQS.
The dispute before us here, in a nutshell, is whether Subpart 1 alone (as the agency determined), or rather Subpart 2 or some combination of Subparts 1 and 2, controls the implementation of the revised ozone NAAQS in nonattainment areas.
We actually had a great example of using both tools in the U.S. implementation of the phase-out of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol, which George Shultz and James Baker point to with justifiable pride.
would apply to the implementation of the new 8-hour ozone standards).
38856, 38885 (1997); see also id., at 38873 ("[T]he provisions of subpart 1... would apply to the implementation of the new 8-hour ozone standards").
