...
首页> 外文期刊>Environment reporter - Cases >Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA
【24h】

Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA

机译:Food&Water Watch,Inc.诉EPA

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Plaintiffs are entitled to judicial review of their petition on the merits because they complied with the two minimal statutory requirements: they filed their petition with the Administrator, and they set forth the facts they believe justify a rule under Section 6(a) regulating the fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Plaintiffs were not required to address other uses of fluoridation chemicals in their petition to the EPA. Moreover, Plaintiffs sufficiently identified the chemical substances at issue in their petition and explained why they seek to regulate that category of substances. Whether they can meet their ultimate burden on the merits with respect to each chemical substance remains to be seen, but they are at least entitled to attempt to make that showing. Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. This order disposes of Docket No. 28.
机译:原告有权依据案情对他们的请愿进行司法审查,因为他们遵守了两个最低法定要求:他们向行政长官提交了请愿书,并且陈述了他们认为可以根据第6(a)节规定的规则对氟进行辩护的事实。饮用水供应。原告在向EPA的请愿书中无须解决氟化物的其他用途。此外,原告在其请愿书中充分确定了有争议的化学物质,并解释了为何设法管制该类别的化学物质。它们是否能够满足每种化学物质的优点的最终负担尚待观察,但他们至少有权尝试进行这种显示。被告开除的动议被拒绝。该命令处理了第28号文案。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environment reporter - Cases》 |2018年第19期|2349-2361|共13页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

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