Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

DOT Establishes Demonstration Assistance Program for Indigent Participants in Agency Proceedings

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has become the first federal agency to establish procedures, in the absence of specific statutory authority, for providing financial assistance to indigent participants in administrative proceedings.1 On January 13, DOT announced the beginning of a one-year demonstration funding program2 for participants in selected National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.3 T

Supreme Court Declares State Law Controls Riverbed Title Issues

Overturning a three-year-old decision, the United States Supreme Court on January 12 declared that ownership disputes concerning the beds of intrastate navigable water henceforth must be decided as a matter of state law, rather than federal common law. Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v.

Second Circuit Enforces New York Transportation Controls Despite Tenth Amendment Objections

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that New York City must implement and enforce four transportation control strategies contained in the New York air quality implementation plan.1 In a citizens suit brought by several environmental groups and individuals under §304 of the Clean Air Act seeking enforcement of the plan, the court held that the city was precluded from raising constitutional defenses based on the Tenth Amendment as recently construed by the Supreme Court in National League of Cities v.

Wildlife Protection: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Comes of Age

More than three years after passage of the Endangered Species Act,1 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed regulations2 to implement §7,3 one of the strongest statutory mandates for environmental protection presently on the books.4 Less than two weeks after the §7 regulations were proposed, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision strictly enforcing §7's mandate.

Dupont v. Train: Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Issue Uniform Effluent Limitations

Partially resolving a protracted series of inconsistent decisions among the circuits,1 the Supreme Court on February 23, 1977 held in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train2 that §301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA)3 authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations establishing uniform, single-number, industrywide effluent limitations for existing dischargers, provided some allowance is made for variations in individual plants.

Recombinant DNA Research: Legislative and Legal Issues

An emotional debate, heretofore waged in scientific journals1 and university communities, has now moved to congressional hearing rooms. The debate concerns the potentially beneficial but perhaps hazardous technique of recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) research, in which DNA molecules—the genetic material of every cell that transmits an organism's hereditary characteristics—are chemically cut and then recombined into new molecules.

The Move to Amend §404 of FWPCA: House Passes Bill Limiting Federal Authority Over Dredge and Fill Activities

On April 5, 1977,1 the House of Representatives passed a bill which would severely limit the federal government's authority to regulate the dredging and filling of wetlands. H.R. 3199 renews a number of funding authorizations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), including the multi-billion-dollar grant program for construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities.

Accidents and Bookies: North Carolina Judge Declares Price-Anderson Act Unconstitutional

On March 31, 1977, federal Judge James B. McMillan of the Western District of North Carolina declared the Price-Anderson Act,1 which limits total liability for damages from accidents involving civilan nuclear power reactors, to be an unconstitutional deprivation of due process and equal protection. Judge McMillan's decision in Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States Atomic Energy Commission,2 is certain to elate opponents of nuclear power development, who view Price-Anderson as the fulcrum of nuclear power issues.