The court holds that a gas and electric company violated the Clean Air Act (CAA) by failing to obtain a preconstruction permit before making modifications to its facility even though there were no actual increases in emissions of pollutants after the changes were made. Based on the CAA and its imple...

The court affirms a district court decision denying residents' request to preliminarily enjoin a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps') permit allowing the use of federal waters and wetlands for construction of an electric-generating plant in Athens, New York, near the banks of the Hudson River....

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval of Georgia's state implementation plan (SIP) mooted environmental groups' claims that Atlanta's motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) was not adequate for transportation conformity. In 2001, Georgia submitted to EPA a p...

The court holds that the citizen suit provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), §520(f), provides a federal cause of action for the recovery of damages resulting from violation of state regulations that are a part of the state's surface coal mining and reclamation regulat...

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service implementation of interim resource conservation policies in nine national forests was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Forest Service developed i...

A district court holds that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not preempt New York's zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and dismisses an action brought by automobile manufacturers seeking to enjoin the state from enforcing legislation that requires the sale of ZEVs beginning in the 1998 model year...

The court holds that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP's) zero emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations for automobile manufacturers are not identical to California standards as required by Clean Air Act (CAA) §177 and, thus, are preempted by CAA §209(a). In 1992, Massachus...

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when, under the Clean Air Act (CAA) §612(c) and its regulations, it designated a manufacturer's product an unacceptable substitute to freon or when it refused to place the product on the CAA...

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to explain adequately why the physical effects felt by some asthmatics from exposure to short-term, high-level sulfur dioxide (SO2) bursts are not a public health problem under the Clean Air Act. The case arose after EPA decl...

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service's decision to implement land and resource management plan (LRMP) amendments prospectively, but not retroactively, does not violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The court first holds that the grant of authority to amend the LRMPs includes the...