Advertisement

June 18, 2013

Court Stays Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

On December 30, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) pending the resolution of an appeal of the rule. Several companies, industry groups and states appealed CSAPR after it was promulgated in July 2011. The petitioners in the appeals, which have been consolidated, filed motions asking the court to stay the rule pending review. In their motions, petitioners listed unrealistic compliance deadlines, reliability concerns and federalism concerns as among the reasons warranting a stay. The court issued a two page per curiam order granting the petitioners' stay motions, noting that petitioners "satisfied the standards required for a stay pending court review," but adding no further reasoning for its decision. Absent the stay, the rule would have become effective on January 1, 2012.

The court's order also states that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is expected to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) pending resolution of the CSAPR appeals. CAIR was supposed to be implemented through 2011 compliance periods and then replaced by CSAPR. The court's order suggests that CAIR 2012 compliance schedules will come back into effect during the pendency of the CSAPR stay.

While there is no way to know exactly when the court will issue a final decision regarding the CSAPR appeals and, therefore, exactly how long the stay will remain in effect, the court did order the parties to submit proposed briefing schedules that would allow the appeals to be heard by April 2012. 

© 2013 Schiff Hardin LLP

About the Author

Schiff Hardin's diverse environmental practice advises clients engaged in a wide variety of industries and commercial endeavors such as electric generation, natural gas distribution and production, chemical manufacturing, auto and auto parts manufacturing, consumer goods manufacturing, real estate development and investments by financial institutions and equity investors.

Chambers USA has recognized our practice as one of the best in their annual rankings for the past five years. Two of our attorneys were named Leading Lawyers in Illinois by Chambers USA ...

312-258-5516

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be base