Shearer, Adam2019-09-252019-09-252010-11-01201000461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175838"On March 20, 2009, the D.C. Circuit held that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of “natural event” as used in the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) exceptions to air quality monitoring standards was not subject to judicial review, nor were statements in the final rule’s preamble reviewable. The court found that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) could not challenge the final rule for three reasons. First, NRDC’s comment to the proposed rule failed to adequately specify the portion of the proposed rule it was arguing against, and thus the objection was unreviewable. Second, the court held that the preamble was insulated from review because it used conditional and equivocal language. Finally, the statements in the preamble were not ripe for review because NRDC failed to show the statements had immediate legal or practical consequences." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderairclimate ethicsenvironmental protectionnatural resourcesPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle