Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 17-cv-02220 (APM)

Millett, Circuit Judge: The Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. , requires the Environmental Protection Agency to publish an inventory of chemicals manufactured or processed in the United States.

ORDER These matters are before the court on the separate Petitions for Rehearing En Banc filed by Intervenors Northern Arapaho Tribe and Eastern Shoshone Tribe. We also have responses to the petitions from the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. Upon consideration, the petitions were circulated to all the judges of the court who are in regular active service and who are not recused. S

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. This case requires us to determine whether Congress diminished the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming in 1905. We find that it did. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes jointly inhabit the Wind River Reservation. The State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation challenge a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency granting the Tribes’ a

PER CURIAM: The Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” Id. § 7401(b)(1). At issue in this case is Title I of the Act, which requires the Environ*76mental Protec

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WILLIAMS. TATEL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner challenges several provisions of the 1997 Final Rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. That statute prohibits a metropolitan planning organization from approving and the Department of Tra

167 F.3d 641 48 ERC 1193, 334 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 29Envtl. L. Rep. 20,631 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, on behalf of itself and itsmembers, Petitioners,v.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Carol M. Browner, in hercapacity as Administrator of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, Respondents. No. 97-1637. United States Court of Appeals,

ORDER H. Russel Holland, United States District Judge Motions to Dismiss 1 Defendants and intervenor-defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiff s complaints. These motions are opposed. Oral argument was requested and has been heard. Background Plain

MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Defenders of Wildlife (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency (“Defendant,” “the Government,” “the Agency,” or “EPA”). Intervenor-Defendants E.I. du P

OPINION OF THE COURT VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7491, and implementing regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) require states to evaluate the impact that emissions from certain sources of pollution within their borders have on atmospheric visibility in national parks and w

JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the briefs filed by the parties, and on their motions to govern future proceedings. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. R. 34(j). The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). It is. O

674 F.3d 409 (2012) BOARD OF MISSISSIPPI LEVEE COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Lisa P. Jackson, in her official capacity as Administrator; Nancy Stoner, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, Defendants-Appellees, *410 Mississippi Wildlife Federation; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense Fund; Sierra Club;

BOGGS, Chief Judge. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) redesignated Cuyahoga County, Ohio (hereinafter “Cleveland”) from nonat-tainment to attainment for particulate matter, specifically for particles known as PM10 (particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter), on December 11, 2000. This was done pursuant to § 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(

785 F.Supp.2d 592 (2011) BOARD OF MISSISSIPPI LEVEE COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Lisa P. Jackson, in her official capacity as Administrator; and Peter S. Silva, in his capacity as Assistant Administrator for Water, Defendants. v. National Wildlife Federation, Mississippi Wildlife Federation, and Environmental Defense Fund, Intervenor-Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:09CV81-

ORDER THOMAS S. ZILLY, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Federal Defendant’s Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record, docket no. 101. Intervenor Defendants join in the motion in part, docket no. 105. Having reviewed all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the pending motion, the Court enters the following Order. I. Background</

PRYOR, Circuit Judge: In this matter, we must decide whether we have original subject matter jurisdiction over several petitions for review of an administrative rule that exempts transfers of waters of the United States from the requirements for a permit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., or whether we may avoid deciding that question and

KATZMANN, Circuit Judge: We here review an environmental regulation designed to protect fish and other wildlife from harm by structures that withdraw cooling water from the nation’s wa-terbodies. For the most part, we find that the regulation promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA’ or “Agency”) is based on a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statute and sufficiently supported by a factual record

OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves the review of a final decision by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) redesignating the status of the Cincinnati metropolitan area from “nonattainment” to “attainment” for ground-level ozone, and approving a clean air maintenance plan for the area. Marilyn Wall and Mike Fremont, residents of Ohio, filed suit to request that

58 F.3d 643 41 ERC 1097, 313 U.S.App.D.C. 83, 64USLW 2063,25 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,217 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Intervenors. No. 93-1197. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS. STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: In its 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress ratified a previously established program1 for the “prevention of sig*170nificant deterioration of air quality.” See § 127, Pub.L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685, 731-42, a