The Section 5 states that it has to be “new chemical substance or significant new uses of a chemical substance”. But since neither “new” or “significant new use” is defined, the court chosen the definition that suited their preferred outcome.
Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.”
By contrast, the EPA offers a different definition of “new,” as meaning “not previously known” or “known but a short time although perhaps existing before.”
All of these definitions are valid. So if the court wanted to avoid creating significant case law, they should have rejected the first argument as not significant and moved to the other arguments. It was a typical decision where the count had an outcome they wanted and then looked for the reasons to justify it instead of looking at the case blindly as they should.
ApexHunter@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
All you have to do is lie about producing toxic chemicals for as long as possible. Checkmate epa!
ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 months ago
Gigabrain strat 🧠