ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 18





The D.C. Circuit held that EPA's regulations limiting the content of VOCs in architectural coatings and paints were lawful. Contrary to the contentions of a paint manufacturer and an architectural coatings association, nothing in the CAA requires EPA to regulate VOCs according to their individual reactivity, and EPA's categorical approach based on the amount of VOCs in a product is a reasonable interpretation of the CAA's reactivity-related requirements. CAA §183(e)(2)(a) directs EPA to study VOC emissions from any combination of commercial products, not individually. Further, CAA §183(e)(2)(a) requires EPA to submit a report to Congress on commercial VOC emissions within three years, but if EPA studied the reactivity of each VOC individually, 166 years of testing would be required. EPA also complied with CAA §183(e)(2)(B)(iii)'s requirement to consider highly reactive VOCs when it established criteria for consumer and commercial products. Likewise, the possibility that EPA failed to conduct individual reactivity tests that resulted in the regulation of some less reactive VOCs and that architectural coatings as a category were given priority regulation when they should have been in a less regulated group did not render EPA's methodology inconsistent with the CAA's command to account for VOC emissions on a reactivity basis. Moreover, EPA's general reliance on the mass VOC emissions, coupled with the exemption for those VOCs known to be highly reactive, constitutes a reasonable approach given both the uncertainties and inconsistencies of reactivity. Similarly, EPA considered the beneficial environmental effects of negative reactivity of VOC and concluded the phenomenon was too rare and unpredictable to warrant changes in the regulatory structure. Also, EPA has the authority under the CAA to regulate the manufacture and sale of coating products nationwide and not just in nonattainment areas. In addition, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the association's RFA, 5 U.S.C. §603(a), challenge, and EPA's regulations were not arbitrary and capricious under the RFA and the APA. Moreover, EPA did not violate the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because judicial review under the Act is limited to preparation of a cost benefit analysis, but such an analysis is not triggered unless a regulation will result in $100 million in expenditures in a year. EPA, however, estimates that the VOC regulations will have a total cost of $32 million per year. Further, Congress did not exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause when it regulated VOCs under CAA §183. Unlike recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that dealt with federal statutes that were unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because they did not concern commerce, VOC emissions concern the interstate transport of ozone and have an economic effect on the national economy. Allied Local & Regional Manufacturers Caucus v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-1527 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2000) (19 pp.).

back to top


The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Native American tribe's and the United State's claims to additional water rights from the Colorado River are not precluded by a previous Court decision or by a 1983 consent decree entered into by the United States and the tribe. The tribe's and the government's present claims are based on their contention that the tribe's reservation encompasses 25,000 acres of disputed boundary land not attributed to that reservation in earlier stages of the litigation, which began in 1952. Arizona and California argued that the United States could have raised a boundary lands claim in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (Arizona I), based on facts known at that time. The states, however, had every opportunity, and every incentive, to press their preclusion argument in earlier stages of the litigation following Arizona I, yet failed to do so. Likewise, the 1983 consent decree, which settled the tribe's claims that a 1893 agreement in which it ceded lands to the United States was invalid, does not preclude the United State's and the tribe's claims to increased water rights for the disputed boundary lands. The final consent judgment is too opaque to serve as a foundation for issue preclusion. The states' preclusion arguments were therefore rejected, and the Court remanded the outstanding water rights claims associated with the disputed boundary lands to a Special Master for a determination on the merits. The Court, however, accepted the Special Master's recommendation that the parties' proposed settlements with regard to two reservations be approved. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Rehnquist, C.J., with whom O'Connor, J., and Thomas, J., joined, dissented in part and concurred in part.  Arizona v. California, No. 8 Orig. (U.S. June 19, 2000) (39 pp.).


The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Massachusetts law restricting the authority of its agencies to purchase goods or services from companies doing business with Myanmar is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Three months after the state law was enacted, Congress passed a federal law that imposes a set of mandatory and conditional sanctions on Myanmar. Although Congress did not explicitly preempt Massachusetts' law, the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress' full objectives under the federal law. The state law's provisions conflict with Congress' specific delegation to the President of flexible discretion to control economic sanctions against Myanmar, and  it undermines the federal law's limitations of sanctions solely to U.S. persons and new investment. The state law also conflicts with the federal law's directive to the President to proceed diplomatically in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy toward Myanmar. The state law, therefore, is preempted  and is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Souter, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Scalia, J., with whom Thomas, J., joined, wrote a concurring opinion. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, No. 99-474 (U.S. June 19, 2000) (32 pp.).


The Second Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part a district court decision holding a lessee that subleased property liable as a CERCLA owner for cleanup costs on the property. The record owner of the property sought contribution from the lessee for cleanup costs at the site.  In some circumstances, a lessee/sublessor of property can be held liable as an owner under CERCLA. Although other courts consider site control as a sufficient indicator of ownership, site control alone is an improper basis for imposing owner liability because it conflates owner liability with CERCLA operator liability. Moreover, owner liability does not automatically apply to lessee/sublessors because of their relationship with the sublessee. The relationship between the owner and lessee/sublessor of the property is critical, and a lessee/sublessor could be transformed into an owner under CERCLA if it possesses sufficient indicia of ownership over the property. To determine indicia of ownership, the court should examine such non-exclusive factors as length of the lease, rights of the owner to determine property use, whether the owner can terminate the lease before its terms, whether the lessee can sublet the property without notice to the owner, whether the lessee must pay taxes, assessments, insurance, or other fees, and whether the lessee is responsible for repairs. Here, the lessee did not possess sufficient attributes of ownership over the property at issue, and the property owner retained many of the rights and obligations of ownership. In addition, the district court properly dismissed the record owner's indemnification and state-negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims against the lessee. Commander Oil Corp. v. Barlo Equipment Corp., Nos. 98-7975(L), -9075(xap) (2d Cir. June 12, 2000) (11 pp.). 

back to top


The D.C. Circuit reversed a district court decision that dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and ripeness a mining company's complaint challenging EPA's extension of EPCRA's toxic release inventory (TRI) program to the metal mining industry. The company alleged that in applying the TRI program to mining, three EPA actions were contrary to law because they revised the program in a substantive manner without the required rulemaking. Instead, EPA allegedly made the revisions in rulemaking preambles and guidance letters. The issuance of guidance may constitute final agency action if it is the consumation of the agency's decisionmaking and legal consequences will flow from it. Here, there is no doubt that EPA's refusal to apply the toxic chemicals de minimis exception to waste rock has legal consequences for the company because it will be required to monitor and report on its waste rock. Further, EPA's refusal to apply the rule is a final agency action embodied, as the company alleges, in a preamble to rulemaking, a guidance document, and an EPA enforcement letter. The issue is also ripe for review because the questions presented are purely legal, and the company's only alternative is to violate EPA's directives and defend an enforcement hearing. Likewise, the mining company's second claim concerns a final agency action and is ripe. The company alleges EPA's announcement that it will treat the transformation of naturally occurring metal compounds into metal sulfides and oxides during extraction as the manufacture of toxic chemicals is inconsistent with EPCRA §313(c) and 40 C.F.R. §372.65(c), which do not permit EPA to treat as manufacturing the conversion of one metal compound into another within the same compound category. A 1999 EPA guidance stating that it will treat metal conversion as extraction is final, and, thus, if the company refuses to abide by it, it will be subject to an enforcement action. In addition, the company's third claim also concerns final agency action that is ripe for review. The company claims that it does not manufacture toxic chemicals when it produces gold bars that contain naturally occurring toxic chemicals. EPA guidance and an EPA letter to another mining company are firm, and the company will incur the legal consequences of recordkeeping and reporting. Moreover, this claim presents a pure question of law and withholding review would have sufficient adverse effects on the company. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Browner, No. 99-5298 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2000) (9 pp.).


The D.C. Circuit reversed a district court decision requiring the FWS to conduct an onsite population count of the Queen Charlotte goshawk in order to determine if it should be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. ESA §14 requires the DOI to list a species as endangered or threatened if based solely on the best available data, the DOI determines that one of the five ESA §4(a)(1) factors for listing a species is implicated. The best available data requirement makes it clear that DOI has no obligation to conduct independent studies. Further, the best available data requirement does not require the DOI to find and consider any information that is susceptible to discovery. Instead of ruling whether or not the best available evidence required the FWS to list the goshawk, the district court ignored the statute and the parties' arguments and determined that the DOI was obligated to find better data. Therefore, the district court decision was remanded to the district court for consideration of whether the best available evidence supports the FWS' decision not to list the goshawk. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, No. 99-5313 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2000) (4 pp.).

back to top


The D.C. Circuit reversed and vacated a FERC order requiring a hydroelectric project in Washington to conduct a study of the project's effects on the anadromous fish in the Nisqually River. The order required the project to determine if a tailrace barrier was necessary to protect fish form the project's turbines. FERC's order is devoid of reasoned decisionmaking and lacks substantial evidence to require the project to conduct a study. FPA §§4(e) and 10(a) require FERC to give equal consideration to energy and environmental considerations, or, in other words, to balance power and non-power values. FERC's order makes no attempt to balance power and non-power values in justifying the need for the study. In fact, there are no material environmental considerations that weigh in favor of the study. A FERC EA made it plain that nothing supported the construction of a tailrace, and there is no evidence that fish have been hurt. Moreover, the fact that fish could be attracted to tailrace discharge is sheer speculation and does not amount to substantial evidence justifying a study. In fact, there is substantial evidence offered by the Native American tribe managing the river's fishery that no harm to fish currently results from the project. Further, FERC's order is arbitrary and capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking. The costs of FERC's prescription far outweigh any benefits to fish or the general environment and, therefore, FERC's order is unreasonable. City of Centralia, Washington v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 99-1273 (D.C. Cir. June 9, 2000) (8 pp.). 


The Tenth Circuit held that several associations of farmers and cattlemen do not have APA standing to challenge the Forest Service's involvement in Colorado's lynx recovery plan. The associations claimed that the Forest Service failed to follow NEPA's environmental reporting requirements, but NEPA does not provide for a private right of action. Therefore, the associations rely on the APA's judicial review provisions. The APA requires plaintiffs to establish a final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court. Here, the associations contend that an agreement between DOI and Colorado concerning the lynx program constitutes a final agency action, but the document is merely a general agreement for state and federal agencies to work together in the future on specific projects. Likewise, a letter from the Regional Forester pledging the Forest Service's readiness to aid the state in implementing the program is not final agency action. An agency's intent to take action if requested is not final agency action under the APA. Similarly, the Forest Service's participation with the state in formulating the plan does not constitute final agency action because there has been no showing of how legal consequences flow from the federal involvement in preparing the plan. Colorado Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Forest Service, No. 99-1125 (10th Cir. June 12, 2000) (3 pp.).


The Tenth Circuit held that an Oklahoma county water authority did not have exclusive rights under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. §1926(b), to provide water to a service area and, therefore, a city did not violate the Act when it provided water to a juvenile detention facility. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act provides protection from competition to rural water services that have outstanding loan s with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The water authority received two FmHA loans in 1980, but it repurchased the loans in 1987. It also received two grants from the FmHA in 1980, and the water authority claims that the grants provide the same protection from competition as did the loans. However, the express language of 7 U.S.C. §1926(b) clearly states that the protection extends only during the term of a loan from the FmHA, not to grants. Thus, when the authority repurchased its loans from the FmHA it lost the protection of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Canadian County Water Authority v. City of Union, No. 99-6217 (10th Cir. June 14, 2000) (3 pp.). 

back to top


The Second Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision denying Eleventh Amendment immunity to the commissioner of a state environmental agency who was sued by a company president that alleged that the commissioner had violated RCRA by taking no action to prevent or respond to environmental contamination on the company's land. The company leased their land to a bulk waste disposal corporation but required the disposal corporation to comply with all environmental laws. Subsequently, the company sued the corporation and the commissioner due to the corporation's alleged violation of several environmental laws. The Eleventh Amendment does not confer immunity on state officials acting in violation of federal law, and RCRA does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, the company must identify the federal constitutional or statutory law that the commissioner threatens to violate. Although the company claims that the commissioner violated RCRA §7002's citizen suit provision and RCRA §4003(a)(2)'s prohibition against new open dumps, it is unclear whether the company's allegations, either alone or in combination, suffice to state a violation of federal law. Therefore, the case is remanded to the district court for such a determination. Farricielli v. Holbrook, No. 98-9139 (2d Cir. June 12, 2000) (5 pp.).


The Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment to the federal government in a condemnation action enforcing an option agreement between a property owner and an environmental group, which assigned its interest to the Bureau of Reclamation. A third party asserted an ownership interest in the property and claimed that the option agreement was obtained fraudulently. However, the individual failed to prove an ownership interest and, therefore, had no standing to remain in the case. Moreover, without standing, the individual's motions to transfer the case and for appointment of an independent prosecutor are dismissed. United States v. 129.97 Acres of Land, No. 99-4122 (10th Cir. June 14, 2000) (3 pp.).


A district court grants a Superfund site administrative group's motion to compel two alleged PRPs to serve responses to the group's Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(a) requests for admission concerning the text of purchase agreements that reportedly address the liabilities and obligations of the parties. The PRPs refused to respond to certain requests because they improperly called for an opinion, a conclusion of law, or an admission to the interpretation of the document. Rule 36(a) authorizes a request for the admission or denial of an opinion of fact or the application of law to fact. Further, a request calling on a party to admit or deny that quoted material is the actual text of an identified document many not be ignored on the ground that the request seeks an interpretation of the text. Moreover, questions of contractual meaning or intent are questions of fact at trial, and Rule 36 authorizes questions relating to a party's admissions or denials regarding a document's meaning. Likewise, such requests are not objectionable because they call for an admission or an interpretation of a contractual provision which could otherwise require judicial determination. Also, the fact that an admission may prove decisive to the case is no ground for refusal to respond. In this case, the range of interpretive possibilities is limited and the requests are straightforward. In addition, the PRPs objected to a request because it involved improper hearsay. Rule 36 authorizes requests seeking admission of fact or application of law to fact, even if the response may be based on hearsay. If the request cannot be answered because it contains a speculative element, an objection may be made, but, in this case, the request is pointed and refers to particular text of a business letter. Therefore, there is no speculation that would render the PRPs incapable of response. Booth Oil Site Administrative Group v. Safety-Kleen Corp., No. 98-CV-696AF (W.D.N.Y. June 7, 2000) (Foschio, J.) (6 pp.).

back to top

Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved


Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic  AIR:

  • EPA amended the Polymers and Resins I and IV NESHAP to address issues raised by petitioners and to update the rules as necessitated by the hazardous organic NESHAP. 65 FR 38029; 65 FR 38079; 65 FR 38129 (6/19/00).
  • EPA expanded the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under the significant new alternatives policy program. 65 FR 37900 (6/19/00).
  • EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone nonattainment area in Ohio and Kentucky has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its extended attainment date. 65 FR 37879 (6/19/00).
  • EPA approved Arizona's §§111(d)/129 plan for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 65 FR 38740 (6/22/00). 
  • EPA approved the CAA §111(d) plans of Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming for controlling emissions from existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 65 FR 38732 (6/22/00). 

red bar graphic  DRINKING WATER:

  • EPA proposed drinking water regulations for arsenic. 65 FR 38887 (6/22/00).


  • EPA released two draft Title VI guidance documents entitled Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs and Revised Draft Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits. They are available from the EPA Office of Civil Rights website at http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/new.htm.


  • EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking involving issues and potential directions the Agency is considering for improving the land disposal restrictions program for treating hazardous waste under RCRA. 65 FR 37932 (6/19/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(g) in connection with the Vacant Lot hazardous waste site in North Chicago, Ill. 65 FR 37973 (6/19/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the West site/Hows Corner Superfund site in Plymouth, Me. 65 FR 37973 (6/19/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed prospective purchaser agreement under CERLCA in connection with the Vacant Lot site in North Chicago, Ill. 65 FR 37972 (6/19/00).
  • EPA proposed to grant final authorization to Hawaii's hazardous waste management program under RCRA. 65 FR 38802 (6/22/00).

back to top



  • U.S. v. Bemis Co., No. 3:96-CV-02420 (AVC) (D. Conn. June 2, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must pay $3 million in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Yaworski Lagoon Superfund site in Canterbury Township, Conn., and must pay $40,000 in natural resource damages to the DOI), 65 FR 38573 (6/21/00);
  • U.S. v. Cotter Corp., No. 00-WM-1076 (D. Colo. May 25, 2000) (a CERCLA defendant must pay $52,500 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Lincoln Park site near Canon City, Colo.), 65 FR 38573 (6/21/00);
  • U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., No. 97-WM-469 (D. Colo. June 8, 2000) (a CWA defendant must pay an $800,000 civil penalty for eight separate incidents in Colorado and Utah involving the spill of diesel fuel from ruptured or leaking locomotive fuel tanks, and must undertake injunctive relief), 65 FR 38574 (6/21/00).

back to top

Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved  


red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed SIP revisions regarding implementation of the one-hour ozone standard in the Birmingham nonattainment area. Gasoline sulfur content and Reid Vapor Pressure controls, as well as NOx emission controls on electric utility plants, are among the proposed control strategies. Public hearing on Aug. 16; comments due Aug. 18. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/phdiv3.html

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

back to top

red bar graphic  ALASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Cruise Ship Regulation

Nonpoint Source Water Pollution-Control Strategy

Clean, Drinking Water Loan Fund

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

MTBE-Proposed Aquifer Water Quality Standard

Draft Regulations-UST State Assurance Fund

Public Water Systems

Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

Draft Pollution Prevention Report and SB 1916 2-Year Workplan

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Final Regulation-Air Toxics

Draft Air Toxics Control Plan

back to top

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Permit Application

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic  CONNECTICUT

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations

red bar graphic  DELAWARE

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Proposed revisions to Regulation No. 5 (Operating Permits) will remove inconsistencies with U.S. EPA Title V requirements under the CAA. Public hearing June 26.

red bar graphic FLORIDA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

New Legislation-Air Quality

General Permit-Temporary Agricultural Activities

  • Proposed rule will develop permitting criteria for horticultural, seasonal crops that are harvested in one growing season. No additional rule development workshops are currently scheduled. 

Proposed Regulations-Surface Water Classification

  • Proposed rule amendment would reclassify Prospect Lake in Broward County. 

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

  • Proposed amendments will incorporate revisions to federal standards. 

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Correction of technical errors in standards governing sulfur storage and handling facilities.

State Revolving Fund-Drinking Water

  • Proposed rule amendments would enable funding of additional wastewater management systems.
  • Public workshop June 28 to discuss DEP's recommendations regarding intended use of fiscal year 2001 SDWA appropriations and state matching funds. 
  • July 27 workshop regarding proposed revisions to the Department's Standard Operating Procedures for Field and Laboratory Operations. The Department proposes to delete all laboratory procedures from the document. 
  • July 13 workshop to discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 62-212, FAC, regarding air emissions, to correct errors. 

Wastewater State Revolving Fund

  • Public hearing on June 29 will concern adoption of fiscal year 2001 Wastewater State Revolving Fund priority list; about $2.5 million will be available.

Stormwater Loan Priority List

  • Subject of June 30 public hearing. 

Environmental Regulatory Commission

  • Meeting on June 29 in Tallahassee. Topics will include TMDLs.

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Proposed Regulations

  • Revisions to Consumptive Use of Waters regulation to set forth conditions under which the District will consider authorizing withdrawals that either require prevention/mitigation measures or are for environmental enhancement. Rule development workshop scheduled for July 7. 
  • Revisions to Application for Water Well Contractor's License form. 
  • Adoption by reference of Fla. Rule 40E-4.091, regarding side slope requirements for water retention/detention and stormwater attenuation areas.

Proposed Regulation-Wetlands, Surface Waters

  • Amendments would establish time frame within which the District must act in evaluating a Petition for a Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters. Public hearing, if requested, will be held after subsequent notice. 

back to top

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed amendments to Chapter 391-3-1, Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants, and amendments to the SIP for attaining the ozone standard in the Atlanta Ozone Nonattainment Area. Public hearing July 12; will be taken up at July 26 meeting of Board of Natural Resources. For details, see http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/

Air Permit Applications

NPDES Permit Applications

Hazardous Waste Permit Application

red bar graphic IDAHO

Division of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications

back to top

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Proposed Procedural Rules

Proposed Revisions-Corrective Action Regulations

  • Proposed revisions to Part 742 rules (the "TACO" regulations) accepted for hearing May 18. At least two substantive amendments, concerning the addition of MTBE as a contaminant to be tested for, and the replacement of existing Subpart J provisions dealing with deed restrictions as institutional controls. The new instrument will be entitled "Environmental Land Use Controls", in response to H.B. 3457 (2000) and the Illinois EPA's determination that it could not employ "No Further Remediation" letters as institutional controls for RCRA sites or those with off-site contamination at underground storage tank sites. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/news/news.htm

Envtl. Protection Agency

Strategic Planning Process

red bar graphic INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Final Regulations-Water

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

Proposed Regulations-Industrial Waste

red bar graphic  LOUISIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Fees

  • Revisions to LAC 33:V.625, 630, 635, 660, and 717, Remedial Action Plans; proposed repeal of certain regulations dealing with control of emissions from motor vehicles and related fees; proposed amendments to LAC 33:XV.2508, dealing with fee determination. For further information, including copies of the proposed regulations and comment information, see http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste

  •  Proposed revisions to LAC 33:VII.Chapter 105 would simplify standards for waste tire generators, transporters, and recyclers, and implement a fee required by Act 1015 (1999) on off-road tires for their disposal and/or recycling. Comments are due by July 3. Details at http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm

Final Regulations-RECAP 

Permit Applications

Proposed Settlement

back to top

red bar graphic MAINE

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

red bar graphic MARYLAND

Dept. of the Environment

Public Meetings/Hearings

Water Quality Standard-Triennial Review

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Air

Enforcement Actions

back to top

red bar graphic  MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Great Lakes Water Quality Report

Clean Corporate Citizen Designations

Draft CWA §303(a) Report

Management Team Public Meetings

Final Regulations-Air

Final Regulations-Wetlands Permitting

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Permit Applications-Air

  • Northern Oaks RDF, for a Renewable Operating Permit. 
  • Venture Industries, for an air permit.
  • Michigan Sugar Co., for a Renewable Operating Permit. 
  • City Environmental Services, for a Renewable Operating Permit.
  • Georgia-Pacific Corp., for a Renewable Operating Permit.  
  • Alchem Aluminum, Inc., for a permit to install a facility to be located in Buena Vista. 
  • Stone Container Corp., for permit for installation and operation of air pollution control systems at facility in Ontonagon.
  • KM Power Company, for installation of a 550 megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Jackson. 
  • Viking Energy, Lincoln, for increase in allowed tire-derived fuel usage rate.
  • Tuscarora, Inc., for increased emissions from an existing polystyrene foam manufacturing facility in Chesaning.
  • Lafarge Corporation, for a change in raw material mix and increases in HCl emissions from cement kilns in Alpena.
  • Cadillac Renewable Energy, for operation of a utility plant in Wexford County.
  • Viking Energy of McBain, for operation of an electric utility.
  • Midland Township, for operation of a municipal solid waste landfill.
  • Central Michigan University, for operation of a power plant.
  • Detroit Edison, Monroe Power Plant.
  • Technisand, Inc., Berrien County, for sand mining operation.
  • MD Enterprises, Grand Rapids, for surface coating operation.
  • Thompson Marine Products, for boat manufacturing facility in Saginaw County.
  • Paulstra CRC Cadillac Division, Wexford County, for manufacturing of automotive parts.
  • Wisconsin Electric Power Company, for Preque Isle Power Plant, Marquette County. 
  • LTV Steel Co., Ferndale, for Renewable Operating Permit. 
  • Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, for Renewable Operating Permit. 

For details, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Permit Applications, Other Notices

  • For solid waste disposal facility permit for Northshore Mining Co., Silver Bay. Comments due July 7.
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for the City of Albertville wastewater treatment facility. 
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for the City of Mapleton wastewater treatment facility. Comments due July 12.
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for the City of Hector wastewater treatment facility. Comments due July 3. 
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for Northern States Power, Mankato. Comments due July 10. 
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for the City of Rushmore. Comments due July 6.
  • For an air permit to Hood Flexible Packaging. Comments due July 5.
  • For an air permit to University of Minnesota. Comments due July 3. 
  • For an air permit to Koch Materials, Savage. Comments due July 13.
  • For an air permit to Pearl Baths, Brooklyn Park. Comments due July 10.

For details, see http://data.pca.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/whatsnew.pl

back to top

red bar graphic  MISSOURI

Dept. of Natural Resources

Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications

red bar graphic NEW JERSEY

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Draft Policy Memorandum

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications)

Permit Applications

Environmental Justice Advisory Group

back to top

red bar graphic  NORTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources

Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments

DENR Enforcement Data

red bar graphic OHIO

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Applications

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Open Burning

Water Quality Permit Applications

back to top

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Land-Use Bills Enacted

Final General NPDES Permit-CAFO Operations

Final Regulations-Air

Proposed General NPDES Permit Revision

Proposed Envtl. Quality Board Policy for Processing Petitions

  • Regarding petitions for redesignation of streams under Chapter 93 (water quality standards) and the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§691.1-691.1001). 

Technical Guidance Document

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Permit Application Notices

red bar graphic  TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality-Fees

Proposed Regulations-Dam Inspection/Construction

Grant Availability-Recycling Marketing

Permit Applications

back to top

red bar graphic  TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Final Regulations

  • May 31, the Commission adopted federal Tier II emissions for cars, trucks, and utility vehicles as an alternative to California emission standards. 

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed amendments to above and underground storage tank regulations to implement HBs 2109, 2815, and 2816, 1999 Legislature. Public hearing July 25; comments due Aug. 1. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99038334.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 205, General Permits for Waste Discharges, to address stormwater discharges, add a compliance history provision, and delete a current limitation on discharges within a 24-hour period. Public hearing June 29; comments due July 3. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99034205.html
  • Proposed amendments to low-level radioactive waste regulations. Public hearing July 6; comments due July 17. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99057336.html
  • Preproposal draft of revisions to Surface Water Quality Standards available at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/index.html
  • Regulations are being drafted that would create a NOx trading program in Houston-Galveston nonattainment area and would reduce the duration of emission reduction credits from ten to five years. A September comment period is expected.

Permit Hearings

red bar graphic  UTAH

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications

back to top

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed TMDL

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Solid Waste Landfills

Permit Applications

Proposed Consent Orders

red bar graphic  WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

Adopted Regulations

Proposed Regulations


red bar graphic WEST VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)

back to top

red bar graphic WISCONSIN

Dept. of Natural Resources

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule