The court holds that, as applied to industrial truck manufacturers and distributors, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) hazard communication standard (HCS) preempt enforcement of the occupational warning requirements unde...
The court holds that a Wisconsin farming family's state-law claims against a pesticide manufacturer are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The family filed negligence and fraudulent representation claims based on the manufacturer's alleged off-label stateme...
The court holds that a U.S. Forest Service proposal for a logging project and road extension in the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but not the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The court first holds that neither the district cour...
The court holds that oil pollution claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) are not subject to the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act of 1851 or to the concursus of claims under Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Ci...
The court holds that summary judgment cannot be granted on the issue of corporate officers' Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, but a successor corporation may be held liable under CERCLA. After a U.S. Virgin Islands clothing manufacturer dissol...
The court holds that 15 of Washington State's 16 best achievable protection (BAP) oil spill prevention regulations are not preempted by federal law. The court first holds that the BAP regulations are not preempted by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). OPA §1018 provides that nothing in the OPA preempts s...
In the past few years, owners of contaminated land, seeking to supplement possible causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and under state common law and state statutes, increasingly have looked to §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to shift responsibility for remediation costs to former owners or operators.
The 1999 National Nuclear Security Administration Act (NNSA Act) threatens to reverse 20 years of reforms and court decisions intended to bring the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) into compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The NNSA Act, enacted in the wake of allegations of spying at Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico, established a semi-autonomous agency within DOE—the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA operates nine laboratories and facilities within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.