首页> 外文期刊>Boston College environmental affairs law review >ONE-STEP FORWARD: THE D.C. CIRCUIT PROVIDES CLARITY TO THE INCREMENTAL APPROACH TO RULEMAKING
【24h】

ONE-STEP FORWARD: THE D.C. CIRCUIT PROVIDES CLARITY TO THE INCREMENTAL APPROACH TO RULEMAKING

机译:一站式服务:直流电路提供清晰的轮流加工方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In 2011, EPA issued the Deferral Rule, excusing generators of biogen-ic b-CO_2-emitted from the combustion of biological materials-from Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations for three years. Citing the need to study b-CO_2, EPA invoked three legal doctrines to justify the rule: the de minimus, one-step-at-a-time, and administrative necessity doctrines. This Comment addresses Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Deferral Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit vacated the rule. Although the court did not decide the issue of statutory authority, it dismissed EPA's legal justifications as incompetently invoked. Focusing on the one-step-at-a-time doctrine, the decision clarifies that although incremental rulemaking might be justified, it must be in furtherance of congressional intent, which, in this case, was to regulate all CO_2-biogenic or otherwise-under the CAA. The D.C. Circuit's decision is a decisive victory for the environment.
机译:2011年,EPA颁布了《延后规则》,将《生物空气燃烧法》(CAA)条例中的生物材料燃烧产生的生物性b-CO_2的产生者原谅。 EPA出于研究b-CO_2的需要,援引了三项法律学说来证明该规则的合理性:最低要求,一次一步法和行政必要性学说。本评论针对生物多样性中心诉环境保护局一案,其中生物多样性中心在美国联邦巡回上诉法院对延期规则提出异议。直流巡回法院取消了该规则。尽管法院没有裁定法定权力问题,但法院以无能为力的理由驳回了EPA的法律依据。该决定着眼于一步一步的原则,澄清了尽管制定增量规则可能是有道理的,但必须以促进国会意图为前提,在这种情况下,这是为了规范所有CO_2生物或其他原因。根据CAA。华盛顿特区巡回决定是对环境的决定性胜利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号