Sunday, April 13, 2008
BNA recently published the following opinions. For those of you not familiar with environmental law, BNA frequently obtains and publishes opinions that are not readily available through other sources. subscribers can access the full test -- for a free trial or to subscribe contact BNA at http://web.bna.com or call BNA Customer Relations at 800-372-1033, Mon. - Fri. 8:30 am - 7:00 pm (ET).
California Merchant Vehicle Rules Restricting PM, NOx, and SO2 emissions from marine vessel engines within 24 miles of California coast are preempted by the Clean Air Act:(1) CAA preempts state standards regulating nonroad engine emissions unless California receives approval for specific standards from Environmental Protection Agency; (2) agency did not seek approval for its rules; (3) even though rules only apply to non-new engines, preemption under act applies to regulation of both existing and new engines; (4) agency's rules are standards under act; and (5) rules are not "in-use requirements" not subject to preemption under act. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. California Air Resources Board (9th Cir. 2/27/08)
9th Circuit stayed preliminary injunction prohibiting sonar testing off California coast because: (1) federal district court did not explain why injunction could not be tailored to authorize testing with mitigation measures court previously approved, (2) Navy presented substantial case on appeal, (3) Navy will be harmed absent stay, and (4) public interest in national defense militates in favor of granting stay. See NRDC v. Navy Department (9th Cir. 8/31/07)
Successor corporation claims that CERCLA 106 administrative order violates due process dismissed: (1) order did not deprive successor of protected property or liberty rights, (2) successor has meaningful opportunity to challenge order in court, (3) government's role as potentially responsible party potentially liable for cleanup of site does not render issuance of administrative order unconstitutional, and (4) Section 120(a)(1) of CERCLA only waives government's sovereign immunity and does not establish any substantive rights that Section 106 orders could violate. See Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. United States (D. Kan., 8/10/07)
Summary judgment issued for NMFS regarding claim that NMFS Hatchery Fish Policy without EIS violated NEPA. ESA procedures displace NEPA as to listing determinations, critical habitat designations and any other action taken pursuant to the listing policy: (1) NEPA purposes were served by service providing public with notice and opportunity to comment on listing policy, (2) service considered alternatives proposed in public comments, and (3) ESA environmental protection procedures that displace NEPA EIS procedures as to listing determinations and critical habitat designations will apply to any action taken pursuant to listing policy. See Trout Unlimited v. National Marine Fisheries Service (W.D. Wash. 6/13/07)