We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 28

Administrative Procedure ActRCRA: Tenth Circuit rules EPA may revise tentative interpretation of regulation without rulemaking

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2010

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that EPA can revise a tentative interpretation governing the handling of magnesium waste without conducting a formal rulemaking

Tenth Circuit reverses Rocky Flats class action over jury instructions

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2010

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a $926 million judgment against former operators of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant near Denver, Colorado, because the trial court gave the jury improper instructions

DOI exceeded authority in withdrawing from lease sale, but challenge filed too late

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2010

A federal judge in Utah has determined that the Department of Interior (DOI) exceeded its statutory authority by withdrawing 77 disputed parcels on Bureau of Land Management lands in a 2008 oil and gas lease sale

NEPAwater resources: federal court upholds injunction in water supply project lawsuit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 19 2010

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has upheld an injunction preventing the completion of the Northwest Area Water Supply Project until the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) completes an adequate environmental impact statement (EIS) that takes a “hard look” at the cumulative impact of water withdrawal and invasive species issues

NEPA: Ninth Circuit allows drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) properly approved plans for exploratory drilling in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort Seas by Shell Offshore Inc

Citizen suit seeks to halt construction of silicon plant

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2010

A Washington resident has filed a citizen suit under section 7604 of the Clean Air Act seeking to halt construction of a $688 million expansion of a Moses Lake silicon plant

California Supreme Court rules SCAQMD must consider emissions of permitted equipment

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2010

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required to consider already-permitted equipment that predated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it conducts an environmental impact analysis of upgrades at a Los Angeles refinery

Air: Ohio utility to settle alleged NSR violations

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2010

An Ohio non-profit utility has agreed to settle alleged Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) violations by paying a civil penalty of $850,000 and spending $15 million on an environmental mitigation project

Marine Mammal Protection ActESA: environmental group files notice of intent to sue over alleged oil drilling violations

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2010

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has filed a notice of its intent to sue the Secretary of the Interior for allegedly allowing oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA

Air: Federal court rules EPA not required to block power plants

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2010

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has ruled that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not require EPA to stop the construction of three power plants in Kentucky