comparemela.com

Latest Breaking News On - Hollyfrontier cheyenne refining - Page 14 : comparemela.com

New EPA, new decision on RFS

The EPA announced today, Feb. 22, that it supports the court s interpretation of the renewable fuel standard small-refinery provisions. Big news: #EPA announces its support for the Tenth Circuit s interpretation of small refinery exemptions. EPA agrees that the exemption was intended to operate as a temporary measure. SCOTUS will ultimately decide the issue later this year. #RFShttps://t.co/AV02BE6fYT Corey Lavinsky (@coreymizzou) February 22, 2021   EPA signals MAJOR change on SREs. This is fantastic news for America’s #biofuel producers, farmers, and consumers. We re grateful the new leadership at @EPA took the time to thoroughly review and carefully assess the 10th Circuit Court’s decision. . https://t.co/PcRD7aYjiw

EPA switches stance to support Tenth Circuit s Renewable Fuels Association Decision

EPA switches stance to support Tenth Circuit’s Renewable Fuels Association Decision The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that, after careful consideration of the 2020 decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Renewable Fuels Association et al. v. EPA, 948 F.3d 1206 , EPA now supports that court’s interpretation of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) small-refinery provisions. This conclusion, prompted by a detailed review following the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in the case, represents a change from EPA’s position before the Tenth Circuit. The change reflects the Agency’s considered assessment that the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning better reflects the statutory text and structure, as well as Congress’s intent in establishing the RFS program.

After Careful Consideration, EPA Supports Tenth Circuit s Renewable Fuels Association Decision — Agenparl

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 – 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Nine Tribal Nations       (Lenexa, Kan., February 22, 2021) – EPA is today announcing that, after careful consideration of the 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Renewable Fuels Association et al. v. EPA, 948 F.3d 1206 (“Decision”), EPA supports that court’s interpretation of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) small-refinery provisions. This conclusion, prompted by a detailed review following the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in the case, represents a change from EPA’s position before the Tenth Circuit. The change reflects the Agency’s considered assessment that the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning better reflects the statutory text and structure, as well as Congress’s intent in establishing the RFS program. 

EPA signals new position on ethanol waivers

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Supports lower court ruling that EPA may extend existing small refinery exemptions but may not create new ones. Despite the Trump administration’s previous view of the 10th Circuit’s interpretation of small refinery exemption (SRE) eligibility under the Renewable Fuel Standard, the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not file a brief supporting that position by the Supreme Court’s deadline in HollyFrontier. After careful consideration, EPA says it agrees with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s reading of the RFS small refinery exemption provision. In a statement posted on its Website Feb. 22, EPA says it supports the Tenth Circuit Court ruling issued in January 2020 where the court vacated and remanded three EPA decisions granting SRE petitions for the 2016 and 2017 RFS compliance years which were issued in calendar years 2017 and 2018, holding that a small refinery’s petition can be grant

The Supreme Court - January 11, 2021 | Dorsey & Whitney LLP

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 20-440: Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits. Guam v. United States, No. 20-382: In a case implicating the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9607(a), the Court granted review on the following questions: 1) Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B). 2) Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).

© 2024 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.