Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

News & Analysis In the Agencies Volume 49, Issue 4

84 FR 6835

United States v. Ameren Missouri, No. 19-231 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2019). Settling CERCLA defendants must pay all future response costs related to Site P of the Sauget Area 2 Superfund site in Sauget, Illinois, and complete the remedial work selected in a record of decision for the site that is estimated to cost $2.9 million.

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

84 FR 6834

United States v. Holyoke, Massachusetts, City of, No. 19-cv-10332 (D. Mass. Feb. 21, 2019). A settling CWA defendant that discharged pollutants from its wastewater collection system without authorization and not in compliance with its NPDES permit must submit a long-term, combined sewer overflow plan by December 31, 2019.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

84 FR 6736

SIP Proposal: Hawaii (interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS).

Clean Air Act (CAA)

84 FR 6732

SIP Proposal: Colorado (revisions to PSD permitting program and nonattainment new source review requirements).

Clean Air Act (CAA)

84 FR 6676

EPA finalized its residual risk and technology review for wet-formed fiberglass mat production NESHAPs.

Clean Air Act (CAA)

84 FR 6353

SIP Proposal: New Mexico (update to state board requirements).

Clean Air Act (CAA)

84 FR 6334

SIP Approval: New Mexico (update to state board requirements).

Clean Air Act (CAA)

84 FR 6163

United States v. Hillcrest Industries, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-99 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2019). A settling CERCLA defendant must pay $350,000 for the recovery of past response costs incurred at one of its properties.

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

84 FR 6110

FWS proposed to remove the Borax Lake chub, a fish native to Oregon, from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; a review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the threats to the species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the ESA.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

84 FR 6278

FWS determined endangered species status under the ESA for the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw and threatened species status for the northern distinct population segment of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)
  • 1
  •   |  2
  •   |  3
  •   |  4
  •   |  5
  • of 10
  • »