<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Administrative Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/administrative-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Air Passenger Screening Program</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/23/air-passenger-screening-program/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/23/air-passenger-screening-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secure Flight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorist Watch List]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation Security Administration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[US Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, announced Wednesday the implementation of a final rule for a government program developed to screen potential air passengers against the government&#8217;s &#8220;no fly&#8221; terrorist watch list. The program, Secure Flight, will be in effect in early 2009 for domestic flights (late 2009 for international flights) and will require airlines [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>US Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/secureflight_final_rule.pdf">announced</a> Wednesday the implementation of a final rule for a government program developed to screen potential air passengers against the government&#8217;s &#8220;no fly&#8221; terrorist watch list. The program, Secure Flight, will be in effect in early 2009 for domestic flights (late 2009 for international flights) and will require airlines to collect and submit to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) the full names, gender and birthdate of traveling passengers. The TSA will then compare the information against the government&#8217;s watch list and decide whether a passenger should receive a boarding pass.</p>
<p>The program is designed to eliminate misidentifications and other inefficiencies in the process,  which was previously handled by the airlines themselves. The program has been delayed due to privacy concerns, but the TSA Administrator, Kip Hawley, stated:</p>
<p>&#8220;Secure Flight will improve security by maintaining the confidentiality of the government&#8217;s watch list information while fully protecting passengers&#8217; privacy and civil liberties. &#8230; Ensuring privacy has been a cornerstone of this program and TSA has developed a comprehensive privacy plan to incorporate privacy laws and practices into all areas of Secure Flight.&#8221;</p>
<p>Source:<a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/10/chertoff-announces-revised-airline.php"> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/10/chertoff-announces-revised-airline.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm">http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/23/air-passenger-screening-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opposition to Abortion Refusal Rule</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/24/opposition-to-abortion-refusal-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/24/opposition-to-abortion-refusal-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conscience Protection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thirteen state attorneys general wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday in protest of a rule recently proposed by the Bush Administration to prohibit employer or medical society retaliation against a health care professional who opposes abortion for religious or moral reasons. The proposed rule would require certification by hospital, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thirteen state attorneys general wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday in protest of a rule recently proposed by the Bush Administration to prohibit employer or medical society retaliation against a health care professional who opposes abortion for religious or moral reasons. The proposed rule would require certification by hospital, medical office and nursing home employers that the employer&#8217;s practices comply with federal law in protecting the conscience of health care workers. Violations could result in losing future government funding and a recovery of funds already received. Specifically, the rule was designed to enforce protection of the conscience of health care workers found in three federal laws, which under certain circumstances offer protection for parties who participate in abortions as well as those who do not.</p>
<p>The attorneys general claim the rule, which is applicable to employers receiving government money, vaguely defines abortion in a way that could be interpreted to include birth control, and is a threat to institutions who provide services to victims of rape. The states involved in the protest are Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap092408s.html">http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap092408s.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/24/opposition-to-abortion-refusal-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Reserve Grants Change of Status for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/22/federal-reserve-grants-change-of-status-for-goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/22/federal-reserve-grants-change-of-status-for-goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morgan Stanley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Reserve Board on Sunday cleared the way for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the nation&#8217;s last two remaining investment banks, to now operate as bank holding companies. This means that the companies can operate as commercial banks and can now take in deposits and increase their resources. The drastic move is also part [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Reserve Board on Sunday cleared the way for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the nation&#8217;s last two remaining investment banks, to now operate as bank holding companies. This means that the companies can operate as commercial banks and can now take in deposits and increase their resources. The drastic move is also part of a plan to keep the institutions from collapsing.</p>
<p>Both banks must now abide by stricter rules set in place by the Federal Reserve. Previously, they were regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.</p>
<p>After consulting with the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve noted today that the statutory five-day antitrust waiting period will not be neccessary and the change in status will be granted immediately.</p>
<p>Sources:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20080922a.htm">http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20080922a.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20080921a.htm">http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20080921a.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94877512">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94877512</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/22/federal-reserve-grants-change-of-status-for-goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Reserve and Lawmakers Working on Economic Recovery Plan</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/19/federal-reserve-and-lawmakers-working-on-economic-recovery-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/19/federal-reserve-and-lawmakers-working-on-economic-recovery-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:53:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Reserve and Congressional leaders are close to announcing a comprehensive plan to stem the nation&#8217;s financial crisis. The plan aims to relieve financial institutions of mortgage-backed securities and other distressed assets that have led to ecomonic instability.
The plan, which is expected to be announced next week, will be the biggest government bail out [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Reserve and Congressional leaders are close to announcing a comprehensive plan to stem the nation&#8217;s financial crisis. The plan aims to relieve financial institutions of mortgage-backed securities and other distressed assets that have led to ecomonic instability.</p>
<p>The plan, which is expected to be announced next week, will be the biggest government bail out since the Great Depression.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wallstreet19-2008sep19,0,1751143.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wallstreet19-2008sep19,0,1751143.story</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/19/federal-reserve-and-lawmakers-working-on-economic-recovery-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FDA Says it Will Now Post List of Drugs With Safety Concerns</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/05/fda-says-it-will-now-post-list-of-drugs-with-safety-concerns/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/05/fda-says-it-will-now-post-list-of-drugs-with-safety-concerns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Desflurane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heparin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Icodextrin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insulin U-500]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nitroglycerin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said today that it will start posting a quarterly report on its website of medications that are being reviewed for potential safety issues.
The first list of 20 drugs was posted today. Medications include Desflurane, Heparin, Icodextrin, Insulin U-500, and Nitroglycerin. Potential problems associated with the medications are also noted.
The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said today that it will start posting a quarterly report on its website of medications that are being reviewed for potential safety issues.</p>
<p>The first list of 20 drugs was posted today. Medications include Desflurane, Heparin, Icodextrin, Insulin U-500, and Nitroglycerin. Potential problems associated with the medications are also noted.</p>
<p>The new safety information is being distributed to consumers as a result of the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act. The act now requires the FDA to post quarterly information on potential drug risks, based on a review of adverse event reports submitted by doctors and hospitals.</p>
<p>The FDA emphasizes that just because a medication is noted does not mean that patients should stop taking them, but rather the list is part of an effort to alert patients earlier of potential side effects. Patients should consult their health care providers if they have further questions.</p>
<p>Sources:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/potential_signals/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/potential_signals/default.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/potential_signals/potential_signals_2008Q1.htm">http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/potential_signals/potential_signals_2008Q1.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/09/05/fda-says-it-will-now-post-list-of-drugs-with-safety-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polar Bears Now on &#8216;Threatened&#8217; Species List</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/15/polar-bears-now-on-threatened-species-list/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/15/polar-bears-now-on-threatened-species-list/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 15:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/15/polar-bears-now-on-threatened-species-list/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US government has added polar bears to its list of animals to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made the annoucement on Wednesday after recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
A report by the US Geological Survey said loss of sea ice as a result of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US government has added polar bears to its list of animals to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made the annoucement on Wednesday after recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.</p>
<p>A report by the US Geological Survey said loss of sea ice as a result of global warming could lead to a destruction of the animal&#8217;s habitat and 2/3rds of the species within the next 50 years.</p>
<p>Sources: <a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html">http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/15/polar-bears-now-on-threatened-species-list/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Passes Consumer Product Safety Bill</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/03/07/senate-passes-consumer-product-safety-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/03/07/senate-passes-consumer-product-safety-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/03/07/senate-passes-consumer-product-safety-bill/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Senate on Thursday passed one of the strongest consumer product safety bills in more than a decade. The legislation calls for an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to be more response to consumer complaints about product safety.
Most notably, the bill calls for the creation of a public database to allow consumers great access to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US Senate on Thursday passed one of the strongest consumer product safety bills in more than a decade. The legislation calls for an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to be more response to consumer complaints about product safety.</p>
<p>Most notably, the bill calls for the creation of a public database to allow consumers great access to product complaints. It will also increase funding and staff for the agency. It also seeks to strengthen testing on children&#8217;s products including reducing the amont of lead allowed in toys.</p>
<p>The bill is a tougher version than the House passed in December.</p>
<p>House and Senate leaders will now meet to sort out differences before sending the legislation to President Bush. </p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/03/cpsc_senate.html">http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/03/cpsc_senate.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/03/07/senate-passes-consumer-product-safety-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FDA Issues Warnings on Kids Cold Medicine</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/18/fda-issues-warnings-on-kids-cold-medicine/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/18/fda-issues-warnings-on-kids-cold-medicine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/18/fda-issues-warnings-on-kids-cold-medicine/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Food and Drug Adminstration issued a public health advisory on Thursday cautioning parents against giving children under the age of 2 over the counter cough and cold medications.
Among the biggest concerns to pediatricians are that the ingredients in the medicine can make children hyperactive, irritable and can even be deadly. A 2005 study conducted by the Centers for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Food and Drug Adminstration issued a public health advisory on Thursday cautioning parents against giving children under the age of 2 over the counter cough and cold medications.</p>
<p>Among the biggest concerns to pediatricians are that the ingredients in the medicine can make children hyperactive, irritable and can even be deadly. A 2005 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that over a one year period, more than 1,500 babies and toddlers ended up in hospital emergency rooms after being given doses of cough and cold medicine.  </p>
<p>On October 12, 2007, a group of pharmaceutical companies lead by Johnson &amp; Johnson and Wyeth voluntarily recalled the infant medicines. However, the FDA felt the new advisory was warranted since many parents still likely have medications at home or have not heard of the warnings.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2008/db20080117_066199.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_companies">http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2008/db20080117_066199.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_companies</a> </p>
<p> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/18/fda-issues-warnings-on-kids-cold-medicine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental Groups Seek Polar Bear Protection</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/09/environmental-groups-seek-polar-bear-protection/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/09/environmental-groups-seek-polar-bear-protection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/09/environmental-groups-seek-polar-bear-protection/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three groups sent notice today to federal agencies and officials within the Bush Administration that they plan to sue the government for failing to add polar bears to the threatened species list as authorized by the Endangered Species Act.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace say that polar bears are at [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three groups sent notice today to federal agencies and officials within the Bush Administration that they plan to sue the government for failing to add polar bears to the threatened species list as authorized by the Endangered Species Act.</p>
<p>The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace say that polar bears are at great risk of extinction because of global warming. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service missed a deadline today to protect polar bears under the Act saying the agency needs more time to study the issue. </p>
<p>The formal notice by the conservation groups must be sent before a lawsuit can be filed.</p>
<p>U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries both share responsibility for administration of the Endangered Species Act.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qwD8U2I4R81">http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qwD8U2I4R81</a> </p>
<p> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/01/09/environmental-groups-seek-polar-bear-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rebukes EPA Inaction on Vehicle Emissions</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/02/supreme-court-rebukes-epa-inaction-on-vehicle-emissions/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/02/supreme-court-rebukes-epa-inaction-on-vehicle-emissions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>bpl</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/02/supreme-court-rebukes-epa-inaction-on-vehicle-emissions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a 5-4 decision issued today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a coalition of States and environmental groups petitioning for the reversal of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing the EPA to indefinitely postpone the regulation of automobile carbon dioxide emission levels under the Clean Air Act. On remand, the EPA is required to explain its [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a 5-4 decision issued today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a coalition of States and environmental groups petitioning for the reversal of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing the EPA to indefinitely postpone the regulation of automobile carbon dioxide emission levels under the Clean Air Act. On remand, the EPA is required to explain its reluctance in terms of the hurdles set by the Act rather than through the impermissible &#8220;laundry list&#8221; offered to date.</p>
<p>At issue was not only the interpretation of key language in the Clean Air Act and the propriety of the EPA&#8217;s &#8220;judgment&#8221; that regulations need not be propagated, but also whether the Petitioners had legal &#8220;standing&#8221; to bring the case. Five Justices ruled that the State of Massachusetts had standing both as a sovereign State (rather than an &#8220;individual&#8221; to whom proving the elements of standing is more difficult) and also through procedural rights to challenge EPA decision-making granted by the Act.</p>
<p>The Court&#8217;s four conservative Justices dissented on all points. The White House and a coalition of auto manufacturers and associated States were disappointed by the decision.</p>
<p>The case is <em>Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. </em>No. 05-1120. Decided April 2, 2007. <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf">http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/02/supreme-court-rebukes-epa-inaction-on-vehicle-emissions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
