In the past few weeks, the court has issued several important new rulings on environmental and administrative law.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Truck Trailer Manufacturings Association, Inc. v. EPA On November 12, 2021, the DC Circuit Court stated in a separate ruling that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act and the 2017 Energy Independence and Safety Act 》None of these agencies are authorized to monitor greenhouse gas emissions from tractor-drawn trailers—most commonly, 18 wheeled vehicles transport many products to the market on American highways. According to the court, the trailer does not have an engine and is therefore not subject to the greenhouse emission and fuel efficiency standards promulgated in 2016. (See 81 FR 73478.) After a rigorous review of these regulations, most people determined that clean air does not authorize that part of the EPA rules as far as it applies to heavy-duty trailers, and because the “Energy Independence Act” focuses on Due to fuel economy, the trailer does not use fuel, so NHTSA has no right to use it. Judge Millett agrees with most people's views on EPA rules, but believes that NHTSA's inclusion of commercial trailers in its fuel efficiency rules is a reasonable explanatory judgment and "completely falls within the scope of its statutory authorization."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

BST holding company, etc. v. OSHA November 12, 2021, the court reiterated its recent ruling that the new OSHA emergency interim standard COVID-19, which affects employers of 100 or more employees, must be suspended and pending judicial review. After reviewing and considering the new newsletter it received, the court once again outlined the “serious statutory and constitutional issues” that it believed to be the new OSHA authorization, which was issued in 86 FR 61402. The court concluded that the company seeking suspension "will be irreparably harmed." In the footnote, the court observed that “authorization affects everyone in the United States in some way.” Usually, the case will be tried soon.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Inland Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Company On September 20, 2021, the court ruled that the environmental plaintiff was eligible to initiate this "Clean Water Law Citizen Action", which accused the defendant of illegally discharging pollutants into navigable waters in violation of the "Clean Water Law". Its California State Comprehensive Rainwater Discharge Permit. The complaint was based on the alleged failure of the defendant to monitor his rainwater discharge and report his violation of the permit. The case was tried by a jury, and the jury made a verdict for the defendant on a number of issues, especially whether there was indeed jurisdiction to discharge into navigable waters. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court erroneously ruled that, in its interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gwaltney v. US, sustained release was a prerequisite for maintaining the citizen’s litigation, claiming to continuously monitor and report violations. Nevertheless, given the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Maui County case in 2020, whether there is indeed a jurisdictional immunity is still a question to be decided by the court of first instance when it is remanded.

California River Watch v. City of Vacaville On September 27, 2021, the Ninth Circuit made a ruling in this RCRA lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that the City of Vacaville had transported hazardous solid waste hexavalent chromium as part of it. Residents, however, their municipal water service violated RCRA section 6972(a). Although the city has nothing to do with the actual amount of hexavalent chromium that is used and released into groundwater at the wood processing facility near Elmira, California, the “transporter” of solid waste may still face RCRA's liability. The court also held that the discarded hexavalent chromium is a solid waste regulated by RCRA; here, the wood processing plant is said to release this chemical substance into groundwater, which is the basic water source for the residents of Vacaville, thus triggering RCRA. Applications. Strangely, EPA agreed that the operation of municipal water plants meets the applicable state and federal Safe Drinking Water Act standards in other respects. There are dissenting judges who say that New York City must play an active role in generating this waste before it can assume responsibility.

Waterkeeper of Upper Missouri v. EPA On October 6, 2021, the court ruled on this dispute involving the new water quality standards proposed by the State of Montana and approved by the EPA. The plaintiff argued that Montana could not consider compliance costs when promulgating water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus in "wading streams." The court of first instance and the court of appeal agreed that the "Clean Water Law" and the implemented water quality regulations do not exclude the use of economic tests in some cases, and because the text of the "Clean Water Law" is not conclusive, Chevron should respect it Applicable to the reasonable interpretation of the law. However, the court of first instance raised an objection to the 17-year difference condition provided by Montana, but the Ninth Circuit was unable to determine that this ruling was authoritative and was therefore set aside.

Disclaimer: Due to the general nature of this update, the information provided here may not be applicable in all situations, and action should not be taken without specific legal advice based on specific circumstances.

© Pillsbury-Gravel2Gavel Construction and Real Estate Law | Lawyer Advertising

This website uses cookies to improve the user experience, track the use of anonymous sites, store authorization tokens and allow sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website, you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.

Copyright © JD Supra, LLC