Search

Comments on the debate over the application of cost-benefit analysis in formulating air pollution rules in the U.S. Citation of the scheduled hearing of the U.S. Supreme Court over challenges to the Clean Air Act manifested in the lawsuit filed by the American Trucking Association Inc. against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Assertion on the impracticality of regulations designed to reduce smog-causing ozone and soot; Discomfort of legislators over placing monetary values on human life; Prevalence of the uneven application of environmental rules.

The article presents news briefs related to environmental policy in the U.S. The D.C. Circuit court has vacated a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule establishing a federal implementation plan for attaining national ambient air quality standards in non-reservation Indian country. A suit alleging that a recipient of EPA funds discriminated under the Civil Rights Act has been dismissed by a court. In Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., court of appeal gave its decision.

The article discusses the incoming director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt and the U.S. President Donald Trump's attitudes towards the EPA, including Pruitt's lawsuits against the EPA. The sewage and pollution in the Anacostia River in Virginia and Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) are discussed. Environmental policies of the Trump administration are also discussed.

The article discusses a court case Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy on whether it was proper for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the coal ash regulations beyond the three-year period required by law. The District Court of Columbia ruled in favor of Appalachian but required the parties to submit briefs to address the appropriate EPA deadline. The court disallowed the consent agreement because it extended the deadline but provides for judicial approval of any extension.

The article discusses several court cases in the U.S. including Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. U.S., wherein the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committed error in resolving that the phosphorus rule of Florida for the Everglades did not change quality standards of water, U.S. v. Jho and Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., wherein the shipping company's vessel enters a U.S. port with falsified oil record book, and Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The article discusses the court case Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) v. EME Homer City Generation wherein the U.S. EPA adopted the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Supreme Court held that the EPA's allocation of emission reductions is permissible and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. Also explained is the "good neighbor rule" in the Clean Air Act.

The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court given judgment in the Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012) case. The Court held that the Sacketts may bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) compliance order. The Sacketts disputed that their property is a wetland within the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act.

The article presents U.S. political news briefs. A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Navy must create sonar-free zones in areas where marine mammals congregate. The U.S. Forest Service has approved a contract for British company Vane Minerals to search for uranium in Kaibab National Forest in Arizona. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan for controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants has been found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act.

The article reports that nonprofit groups have won a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA was sued by the groups because it did not consider carbon dioxide to be an air pollutant. The article discusses legislation for car emissions regulations in California, and also discusses the Energy Foundation.

The article reports that on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's claim that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. The court ruled that the greenhouse gas is an air pollutant like any other. Some of the supporters of the lawsuit include the Natural Resource Defense Council and 12 states led by Massachusetts.

The article focuses on a ruling of the United States Supreme Court regarding the Clean Air Act. The court found that the Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Comments from California senator Barbara Boxer regarding the decision are presented.

The article informs that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its draft decision to phase out all uses of azinphosmethyl by 2010. In 2001, despite documenting the risks of this highly toxic pesticide that has been poisoning farmworkers for years, the EPA had allowed continued use of the pesticide. This led to organizations like United Farm Workers of America, Sea Mar Community Health Centers and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, to file a lawsuit challenging that decision in a federal court.

The article reports on the Massachusetts versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) case, which is expected to be heard later in 2006 or early 2007. A coalition of 12 states, a number of cities and several nonprofit organizations said that EPA should limit greenhouse gases emitted from cars. The petitioners, led by the state of Massachusetts, cite scientific studies linking these emissions to wide-ranging impacts including droughts and flooding along the U.S. coasts.

The article examines the issue of climate change litigation in the U.S. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant that is covered by the federal Clean Air Act. The most prominent suit filed against the ruling was when Massachusetts, together with other parties, petitioned EPA for the definition of carbon dioxide as a pollutant and regulation of its emissions.

The article reports on the lawsuit filed by several U.S. states against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over a dozen states have joined in a case against the agency, which seeks to demand the agency to lower the allowed soot levels from smokestacks and exhaust pipes. According to Eliot Spitzer, New York attorney-general, the states were responding to studies that showed the fine material from soot contributes to premature death, asthma attacks and chronic respiratory disease, leading to higher health costs. Furthermore, the states want to reduce the limit by 1 microgram or 2 micrograms of soot allowed per cubic foot of air.

The article presents the Clean Power Plan, a proposal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the reduction of carbon emissions from existing powerplants released in June 2014. It discusses an overview of the plan that will set individual target reductions for each state by 2020 and 2030, lawsuits filed against the draft rule filed by twelve coal-dependent states on August 1, and significance of the proposal for renewable energy.

The article discusses a 2009 court case filed at a California federal court by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California State Water Resources Board against eight East Bay agencies in California to prevent sewage spills into San Francisco Bay. Topics discussed include the East Bay Municipal Water District (EBMWD) and Alameda, Oakland and five East Bay communities committing to invest some 1.5 billion U.S. dollars to upgrade 1,500 miles of sewer system infrastructure.

The article examines the impact of the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pursue stricter limits for coal0fired power plants. Topics covered include the bases of court decisions on the case US EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and concerns about how the courts will deal with the agency's Clean Power Plan.

The author presents his view on the ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit filed by various environmental groups against Environmental Protection Agency. He details the ruling which demanded EPA to require farmers to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for applications made to, over or near bodies of water. He emphasizes that farmers suffered most from that ruling.

The article reports that a federal court overturned a controversial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation requiring coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions. It mentions that in a case brought by 17 states and backed by environmental groups, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit determined that EPA's 2005 "Clean Air Mercury Rule" was unlawful. According to EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons, they are still evaluating the impact of the court's decision.

This article reports on a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by New York and 11 other U.S. states for changes it made in 2006 to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). According to New York state attorney general Andrew Cuomo, the suit seeks to restore the public's right to information on chemical hazards, despite attempts of the U.S. administration to hide it. EPA finalized rules in 2006 that raised the TRI reporting threshold from 500 lbs/year, to 5,000 lbs/year.

The article reports that oral arguments in the case on global warming, Massachusetts v. EPA have been presented before the Supreme Court. The case involved the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from new automobiles and trucks. The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and four jurisdictions and is led by Massachusetts.

The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear disputes on two key environmental cases and a lawsuit over punitive damages against a company. The Court will decide whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. On the other hand, a second Clean Air Act case is about the increasing annual emissions of Duke Energy Corp.

The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeal decision on the lawsuit filed by 12 states against the Environmental Protection Agency on regulating carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The court will be resolving whether the Clean Air Act compels the agency to regulate it as a pollutant to public health and welfare. This case is important to the states that have enacted laws that limit the emissions from vehicles in 2009.

Reports on the fines to be sought by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against DuPont for its violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as of July 14, 2004. Allegations of the EPA against the company; Response of DuPont to the charges filed by the EPA; Significance of the complaints filed by the EPA to the obligation of chemical companies to report information about substantial risk of injury to human health and the environment.

Reports on the decision of environmental groups to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Allegation on the operations of the Washington Toxics Coalition as an illegal EPA advisory group; Purpose of the establishment of the pesticide industry task force in the early 1990s; Intention of chemical companies to weaken pesticide safeguards.

Announces that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency will apply changes to its New Source Review (NSR) rules to dozens of pending NSR lawsuits that were filed when more stringent NSR rules were in place. Significance of the decision; Terms under the NSR rules; Comments from New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Reports on a lawsuit planned by states and a coalition of environmental groups to overturn the New Source Review rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2003. Basis for the lawsuit; Provision of the rule governing air pollution controls; Arguments of the groups against the routine maintenance rule.