Search for: "STATE OF MICHIGAN v. EPA"
Results 81 - 100
of 448
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm
Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 3:40 pm
Since the Bill changed the state plan, the District sought the EPA's approval. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:00 am
Action v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 12:34 pm
Petitioners, including various states (including Michigan) and industry groups, argued that EPA's rules were based on improper constructions of the CAA and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 1:26 pm
While Michigan v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 7:03 am
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 1:44 pm
In a separate, but related, regulatory action, EPA finalized a supplemental rulemaking on December 15, 2011 to require five states -- Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin -- to make summertime NOx reductions under the CSAPR ozone season control program. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 9:28 am
The United States, on behalf of U.S. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 8:58 am
EPA and West Virginia v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 1:26 pm
v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
EPA published the Endangerment Finding in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 12:04 pm
The 11 other states involved, in addition to Texas, are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 1:23 pm
Fifteen former EPA and state regulators supported NEDC. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 1:04 pm
On February 23, 2011, in response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 8:45 pm
EPA's Region V requesting justification for changes made to the State's air pollution control plan. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:38 am
EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and leave in place the existing Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) pending EPA's further action. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 1:02 pm
Supreme Court in (Massachusetts, et al. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 12:50 pm
" Dow Agrosciences L.L.C. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 1:34 pm
" The Appeals Court said, "We reject the first claim, since the EPA expressly found that the 5.0 mg/L limit was necessary to meet state standards, and that a higher limit would not achieve those standards. [read post]
