Earlier this year, Pacific Legal Foundation sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force it to review plants and species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. PLF contended, apparently correctly, that the Service had not been following the mandate of the ESA to the effect that listed plants/species should be reviewed every 5 years to see if protection were still needed: "The service acknowledged it had neglected the reviews, and it agreed to a schedule for their completion." U.S. to review 194 species on endangered list , San Francisco Chronicle, September 23, 2005.
PLF commented on the settlement, as follows (quotes below taken from the SF Chronicle article):
"Whenever a species is listed, it has the potential for restrictions that can be very limiting on the property owner, that can delay property use," said Rob Rivett, a principal attorney for the foundation. "It isn't just about homes. Schools are another example."
Rivett noted that the new UC Merced campus is subjected to significant construction restrictions and is required to fund habitat mitigation efforts because of tiny crustaceans called fairy shrimp that inhabit vernal pools in the area.
Rivett said he believed fairy shrimp might be taken off the endangered species list once reviews were completed.
"Contrary to what was once thought, we now know they are spread over a very broad area of land, from Southern California to southern Oregon," he said.
The Chronicle article suggests that even environmentalists are not unhappy with the outcome. Kieran Suckling, of the Center for Biological Diversity, commented:
"It was a bit of a crackpot suit, but the settlement isn't bad, and we agreed to it," said Suckling. "Some important data may come out of it, and the service is being given enough time so they won't be forced to rush their work. Unfortunately, it will cost the taxpayers about $1 million -- money that would have been better spent on habitat acquisition and recovery."
Dear readers, please explain how the above quote makes sense. "It was a bit of a crackpot lawsuit" to require the Service to comply with the law? It is "unfortunate" that the Service has to use resources to achieve such compliance, instead of applying resources to "habitat acquisition and recovery"--at least some of which acquisition and recovery may not even be needed after appropriate 5-year reviews?
Go figure.
if you cleared the code you will still fail bueacse the computer has to reset itself.and can sometimes take about 100 miles to 500 miles of driving, depending on the car.but dont worry if you give up $150. 00 you can have it legally.ha now the man with the license to put the sticker on for the #150.00 he could not fix the car .so he gets an idiot license .it the first time in history i see some one get a license bueacse he cannot fix the car.haaa.
Posted by: Tridev | October 27, 2012 at 12:19 AM
When notified / acucesd of a Fraud Accusation by the EPA Emissions Program, you are usually given the reason in the notification. The reason(s) should have specific dates and acts that do not comply with their regulations. They probably won't give you a trial per se but may allow you to appeal their decision if you have proof contrary to their findings. The appeal process may also have a specific time frame. Your best course of action may be to inquire as to the process for your re-certification or reapplying for a license. Furthermore, a settlement (I guess you mean monitary) would only happen if you brought suit against them (with significant evidence to support your claim) and won. Gather what evidence you have, the infomation the EPA Emission Program sent you and see if you can get a free consultation with a law firm. They will be able to tell you if they would take your case on a contingency basis. Good luck!
Posted by: Agiel | October 25, 2012 at 06:29 AM