EPA finalized amendments to the procedural framework rule for conducting risk evaluations under TSCA to better align with the statutory text and applicable court decisions, to reflect the Agency's experience implementing the risk evaluation program following enactment of the 2016 TSCA amendments, and to allow for consideration of future scientific advances in the risk evaluation process without need to further amend the Agency's procedural rule.
NMFS proposed to modify the regulations for Marine Mammal Protection Act §104 permits, including scientific research, enhancement, photography, and public display permits and letters of confirmation.
FWS established a nonessential experimental population of the grizzly bear within the U.S. portion of the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) in the state of Washington under §10(j) of the ESA in order to support the reintroduction, recovery, and conservation of the species within the NCE.
United States v. Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., No. 1:24-cv-00238-SJD (S.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2024). Under a proposed consent decree, a settling CWA defendant must pay a civil penalty of $550,000 in addition to $1,250,000 to compensate for harm to natural resources in connection with crude oil escaping from a ruptured pipeline, contaminating waters of the United States, and causing damage to natural resources.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) enforcement program has long been the backbone of environmental enforcement in the United States. That program may now be bound for dramatic change. This Article analyzes the threats posed to the Agency’s program by the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, in which three constitutional questions presented cut to the core of administrative enforcement.
Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) have received a growing amount of attention in recent years, from the Donald Trump Administration banning their use in settlements, to regulation and guidance from the Joseph Biden Administration reversing the ban, to legislative proposals prohibiting them altogether. This Article examines SEPs’ legality under existing law, focusing on claims that they violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and the Antideficiency Act. It begins with a brief history of SEPs’ policy evolution and the limitations on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S.
EPA announced the availability of proposed interim registration review decisions and amended decisions for the following pesticides: Acephate, Captan, Ferbam, Thiram, and Ziram.