We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 99

Navistar case
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • May 20 2012

During oral arguments May 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned the Environmental Protection Agency about why it did not provide for notice and comment on an interim final rule that allows Navistar Inc. to produce heavy-duty diesel engines that exceed nitrogen oxides limits if it pays nonconformance penalties


Biomass permitting delay defended
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • May 20 2012

The Environmental Protection Agency filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit May 14 defending its decision to postpone greenhouse gas permitting for sources that burn biomass as art of its effort to phase in the permitting program beginning with the largest sources


Court affirms government must pay for nuclear waste storage
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • May 20 2012

On May 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld approximately $142 million in damages to Yankee Atomic Electric Co., Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. to cover the costs, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission fees, of storing spent nuclear fuel that should have gone to the government's Yucca Mountain storage facility per agreements signed under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act


Maintenance for selective catalytic reduction challenged
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • March 11 2012

Navistar filed a petition for review March 2 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of new emissions related maintenance and scheduled maintenance intervals related to selective catalytic reduction technology in vehicles


Aircraft lead regulation urged
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • March 11 2012

Friends of the Earth filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia March 7 to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to a 2006 petition asking the agency to find that lead from general aviation aircraft endangers public health and the environment and should be regulated


CA court ruling bolsters air quality exemptions
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • June 17 2012

The California Supreme Court limited June 14 the number of lawsuits challenging local agency decisions exempting proposed projects from California Environmental Quality Act requirements


Cellulosic biofuel requirement challenged in court
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • June 17 2012

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Western States Petroleum Association petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 11 to review an Environmental Protection Agency requirement that the domestic fuel supply include specified amounts of commercially scarce cellulosic biofuels in 2011


CSaPR litigation expedited
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • January 22 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered an expedited briefing schedule January 18 to litigate issues over the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule


Oral arguments scheduled
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • February 12 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a schedule for oral arguments February 8 in several lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’ greenhouse gas regulations


Continuing legal challenges to CSAPR
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • February 12 2012

On February 9, the labor and industry plaintiffs challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit filed a brief arguing that the rule disregarded the actual “significant contribution” of a state to downwind air quality impairment, while separately, states and local governments also challenging the rule filed briefs claiming that the agency inappropriately usurped state power while implementing the rule