Posted
by

On December 27, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promptly commence and conclude a long-promised rulemaking to consider reducing the existing household lead-dust levels that primarily affect children. Judge Schroeder determined that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider this petition under both the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), since EPA in October 2009 granted a petition to begin such proceedings. EPA has been ordered to issue a proposed rule within 90 days of the date this decision becomes final, and to promulgate a final rule within one year after the promulgation of the proposed rule. The case is In re A Community Voice, et al., v. EPA.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Last March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revered the District Court’s ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) could not subject the Utah Prairie Dog to Endangered Species Act-protected status because it was an intrastate species found only in Utah and not on federal land, and thus the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution did not empower the Service to regulate its “take.” The Court of Appeals reasoned that extending protection to the Utah prairie dog was only part of the ESA’s broader regulatory scheme regulating takings of protected species, which, in the aggregate, affects interstate commerce. The case is People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Solicitor General advised the U.S. Supreme Court against taking review, and on January 8, 2018, the Court agreed.

Posted
by

On December 29, 2017, the Montana Supreme Court decided an important Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known also as Superfund, case involving the application of Montana state law in an ongoing federal CERCLA cleanup effort. The case is Atlantic Richfield Company v. Montana Second Judicial District Court. Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, seeking a reversal of several orders of the trial court presiding over the case of Christian, et al. v. ARCO, filed in 2008, in which a group of private property owners in and around the town of Opportunity, MT are seeking restoration damages, based on Montana common law, for their properties that had been adversely affected by the operations of the Anaconda Smelter which operated for nearly 100 years before it was shut down in 1980.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In late December 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued two significant administrative law decisions in the cases of Safari Club Int’l and Nat’l Rifle Assoc. of Am. v. Zinke (decided December 22, 2017) and Clarian Health West, LLC, v. Hargan (decided December 26, 2017). The unanimous rulings in both cases were written by Senior Circuit Judge Edwards, and involved the application of the procedural strictures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to actions taken by two very different departments: The Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Public notice of some very significant regulatory actions has been provided in the waning days of 2017.

  1. On December 28, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ADPRM) at 82 FR 61507 soliciting comments from the public as it considers proposing new state guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)  from existing electric utility generating units.  The ADPRM states that it “focuses on considerations pertinent to a potential new rule establishing emission guidelines for GHG (likely expressed as carbon dioxide CO2 ) from existing [electric utility generating units (EGUs)]. In this ANPRM, the EPA sets out and requests comments on the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of the federal government, state governments, and regulated entities in developing and implementing such a rule, and the EPA solicits information regarding the appropriate scope of such a rule and associated technologies and approaches.” Further, “this ANPRM solicits comment on what the EPA should include in a potential new existing-source regulation under the [Clean Air Act (CAA)] section 111(d), including comments on aspects of the States’ and the EPA’s role in that process, on the Best System of Emission Reduction in this context under the statutory interpretation contained in the proposed repeal of the [Clean Power Plan(CPP)], 82 FR 48035 (October 16, 2017).”  EPA lists a number of available systems of GHG emission reduction, the role, if any, on carbon capture and storage (CCS)technologies, and potential interaction with other regulatory programs such as New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards.  Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018. Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget(Administration) has posted the Fall 2017 Agency Statements of Regulatory Priorities, and what follows is a selection of future environmental regulatory actions a number of departments and agencies are proposing to take.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The states employ unclaimed property laws (also referred to as escheat laws) to determine if property owned by one person but that is in the possession of another person is subject to the state’s control after the period of abandonment set by state law has passed. In recent years, states have aggressively enforced their unclaimed property laws by both auditing companies and assessing fines for failure to comply with the state’s laws. Large and small companies confront the states’ aggressive tactics pretty regularly and, more recently, companies have been fighting back because complying with the state’s audit requests is expensive and time consuming and, from their perspective, the large fines that a state can assess for failure to comply with the state’s unclaimed property law are unfair and unreasonable. Recently, companies have been turning to federal common law for protection against state actions of this nature.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

cannabis-real-estateThe real estate industry has been on a high after the legalization of marijuana, but as we examined in “Part 1: The Real Estate Bloom,” getting involved in this budding industry comes with risks, the majority of which stem from marijuana being listed as an illegal Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Under the CSA, it is illegal to possess, cultivate, and/or sell marijuana or to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use or maintain any place … for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.” Additionally, under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, the federal government is allowed to seize property that is connected to illegal drug activity. This federal illegality opens up the marijuana industry to a number of vulnerabilities. Indeed, federal prosecution of marijuana activities has been relaxed after the issuance of the Cole Memorandum, which instructed federal prosecutors to only focus its efforts on certain issues related to the legalization of marijuana in the states. Such issues include, among others, preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing marijuana revenue from ending up in the hands of criminal enterprises, and preventing the diversion of marijuana across state lines. However, although the Cole Memorandum resulted in the federal government taking a hands-off approach in its enforcement of cannabis prohibition, we may see a federal push back under the current administration, which has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the legalization of cannabis.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On December 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in the case of Town of Westport, et al., v. Monsanto Company, et al., affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in a products liability case involving the sale of products containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court’s ruling, held that

Monsanto did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability because it was not reasonably foreseeable in 1969 that there was a risk PCBs would volatilize from caulk at levels requiring remediation — that is, levels dangerous to human health.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 22, the Texas Court of Appeals, sitting in Fort Worth, decided a case involving mandatory sanctions awarded under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). In Rich v. Range Resources Corporation, et al., the Court of Appeals determined that although that denial of sanctions was erroneous, it was not harmful; error.

Continue Reading ›