...
首页> 外文期刊>Environment reporter - Cases >Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA
【24h】

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA

机译:点击率生物多样性诉EPA

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Environmental groups were not entitled to bring certain claims in federal district court challenging Environmental Protection Agency failure under Endangered Species Act to consult on pesticide ingredient reregistration eligibility decisions, because: (1) federal six-year statute of limitations applies to claims; (2) even though factual dispute exists as to whether amendment to one RED constitutes new triggering action, fourteen REDs were issued more than six years before group filed claims and were time-barred; (3) more specific provisions of FIFRA placing exclusive jurisdiction in federal appeals court for claims challenging validity of orders issued under FIFRA following public hearing apply; and (4) fifteen claims challenged REDs that followed public hearings and district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims.
机译:环保组织无权向联邦地方法院提出某些要求,质疑环境保护署根据《濒危物种法》未能就农药成分重新注册资格决定进行磋商,原因是:(1)联邦六年时效适用于要求; (2)即使存在关于对一项RED的修正是否构成新的触发行动的事实争议,在团体提起索赔的六年多前仍签发了14份RED,并且有时间限制; (3)FIFRA的更为具体的规定将联邦上诉法院对在公开听证后根据FIFRA发出的命令的有效性提出异议的主张适用于联邦上诉法院; (4)在公开听证会之后有15项索赔对RED提出了质疑,而地区法院对索赔缺乏主题管辖权。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environment reporter - Cases》 |2017年第20期|2165-2184|共20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