The EPA themselves defined what is a "new use" as anything that wasn't ongoing as of and after 2015, and the court threw the book at them for being hypocrites w

The EPA themselves defined what is a "new use" as anything that wasn't ongoing as of and after 2015, and the court threw the book at them for being hypocrites with their own logic. The court is saying the EPA can and should use Section 6 to regulate the chemical and process in question, rather than bastardizing Section 5 to skirt due process.