Cluster 798072 (2007)

Council v. EPA (NRDC I), 489 F.3d 1250, 1256 (D.C.

A stay can also place limits and reporting requirements on an agency, thus giving “the agency an incentive to act in a reasonable time.” Id. at 1264 (Randolph, J., concurring).

A stay can also place limits and reporting requirements on an agency, thus giving “the agency an incentive to act in a reasonable time.” Id. at 1264 (Randolph, J., concurring).

See NRDC v. EPA , 489 F.3d at 1264 ("The existence of a stay with time limits, rather than an open-ended remand without vacating, will give the agency an incentive to act in a reasonable time, given the other constraints on its resources.

As I explained in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1263 (D.C.Cir.2007) (concurring opinion), the losing agency may always file a post-decision motion for a stay of the mandate showing why its unlawful rule or order should continue to govern until proceedings on remand are completed.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.Cir.2007) (noting this court’s prior practice of remanding without vacatur).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.Cir.2007) (noting this court’s prior practice of remanding without vacatur).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1265 (D.C.

As we noted in NRDC , “The word ‘any’ is usually understood to be all inclusive,” 489 F.3d at 1257 (internal citation omitted), and EPA presented no compelling reason “why ‘any’ should not mean ‘any.’ ” Id. at 1260 (internal citation omitted).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1265 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1260-61 (D.C.Cir.2007) (same).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1257 (D.C.Cir.2007) ("Under Chevron: We first ask `whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,' in which case we `must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.' If the `statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,' however, we move to the second step and defer to the agency's interpretation as long as it is `based on a permissible construction of the statute.'" (quoting Chev…

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262-64 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Randolph, J., concurring) ("A remand-only disposition is, in effect, an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of the court's decision and agencies naturally treat it as such."); Kristina Daugirdas, Note, Evaluating Remand Without Vacatur: A New Judicial Remedy for Defective Agency Rulemakings, 80 N.Y.U.L.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1257 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“It is true ... that we may examine the statute’s legislative history in order to shed new light on congressional intent, notwithstanding statutory language that appears superficially clear.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1257 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261-62 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261-62 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Defense Council v. EPA 489 F.3d 1250, 1261 (D.C.Cir.2007), with Id. at 1262 (Randolph, J., concurring), Id. at 1264-66 (Rogers, J., dissenting in part); see also Kristina Daugirdas, Note, Evaluating Remand Without Vacatur" A New Judicial Remedy for Defective Agency Rulemakings, 80 N.Y.U.

Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261 (D.C.Cir.2007), with Id. at 1262 (Randolph, J., concurring), Id. at 1264-66 (Rogers, J., dissenting in part); see also Kristina Daugirdas, Note, Evaluating Remand Without Vacatur: A New Judicial Remedy for Defective Agency Rulemakings, 80 N.Y.U.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261-62 (D.C.Cir.2007); id. at 1262-63 (Randolph, J., concurring); id. at 1264-66 (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1263-64 (D.C.

Council (“NRDC”) v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1255 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1264 (D.C.

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1263-64 (D.C.

Council v. EPA 489 F.3d 1250, 1265 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations omitted).

Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1259-60 (D.C.Cir.2007) (concluding that EPA may not create an exception for air pollutant regulation when the statute does not provide for such an exception); Indiana Michigan Power Go. v. Dept. of Energy, 88 F.3d 1272, 1276-77 (D.C.Cir.1996) (finding Department of Energy may not “rewrite” a statute and vacating its decision).

Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1265 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he court has traditionally not vacated the rule if doing so would have serious adverse implications for public health and the environment.”); Fertilizer Inst., 935 F.2d at 1312 (“Because the removal of the EPA’s exemptions may affect the EPA’s ability to respond adequately to serious safety hazards, we are reluctant to remove the exemptions here.”).

See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1257, 1261 (D.C.

See Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.PA., 489 F.3d 1250 , 1262-64 (D.C.

See, e. g.,NRDC v. ERA 489 F.3d 1250 , 1259-1260 (D.C.Cir.2007) (holding that where Congress provides certain enumerated exceptions in a statute, an agency “may not, consistent with Chevron , create an additional exception on its own”).

See Natural Resources Defense Council v. ERA, 489 F.3d 1250 , 1261 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“EPA’s definition of ‘solid waste incineration unit’ conflicts with the plain meaning of section 129 and must therefore be vacated”) (emphasis added).