April 1, 2009: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that would
have virtually eliminated EPA's ability to consider the relationship of
compliance costs with benefits when establishing standards for cooling
water intake structures under Clean Water Act section 316(b), Entergy Corp.
V. EPA, No. 07-588. When EPA set nationwide standards for existing, larger
power plants, it declined to require technology that would provide only a
relatively small additional reduction in entrainment and impingement
mortality of aquatic life, but would have cost utilities [and their customers]
$3.5 billion a year. Adopting an argument that FryeLaw PLLC had
highlighted in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of American Chemistry
Council, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute,
National Association of Manufacturers, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Court found that standards for intake structures need not meet the same
criteria as the Act's most-stringent, Best Available Technology (BAT)
standard for wastewater discharges. As for the Second Circuit's assertion
that BAT effluent guidelines could not balance costs and benefits, the Court
said it did not need to reach that issue, but added: "It is not obvious to us
that [the Second Circuit's interpretation is] correct,"
This decision affects not only existing large power plants, but also existing
industrial cooling water intakes and smaller power plants, as well as new
facilities that withdraw less than 2 mgd per day. Under EPA regulations,
the permitting authority may impose requirements for intake structures at
those facilities on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis. The
Second Circuit's restrictive view of the role of costs and benefits in
implementing section 316(b) could have been viewed as constraining those
case-by-case determinations as well. Click here for a copy of the Supreme
Court opinion. To read an article about the decision in the Washington
Post, click here. For a copy of the amicus brief prepared by FryeLaw PLLC,
click here.
September 12, 2008: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in a key
case pending before the Environmental Appeals Board, Deseret Power
Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 07-03. In that case, the Sierra Club is
challenging a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued
under the Clean Air Act for a power plant expansion, on the grounds that
the permit should have required Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
limits for carbon dioxide. This amicus brief, filed on behalf of American
Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council, American Royalty Council,
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Oilseed Processors Association, and
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, as well as a previous brief in
the case filed March 21, 2008, refutes the Sierra Club argument that BACT
requirements have already been triggered by EPA regulations requiring
power plants to monitor for carbon dioxide. The amici also urge the
Environmental Appeals Board not to question the validity of EPA’s PSD
regulations, which already were subject to judicial review in the Court of
Appeals, and not to impose unilaterally a huge expansion of the universe of
new and modified sources for which preconstruction PSD permits would be
required. For copies of the briefs prepared by FryeLaw PLLC, click here
and here. Copies of other briefs filed in the case can be obtained from the
Environmental Appeals Board website at http://yosemite.epa.
gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.
nsf/f22b4b245fab46c6852570e6004df1bd/c38150f6c4bba3608525736900687af4!
OpenDocument.
July 21, 2008: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in a case the
United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on December 2, 2008,
Entergy Corp., et al. v. EPA, Nos. 07-588, 07-589, and 07-597. The question
the Supreme Court has agreed to consider is whether EPA can consider
costs and benefits in establishing the "best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact” of cooling water intake
structures, under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The amicus brief
was filed on behalf of American Chemistry Council, American Forest &
Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America, and National Association of Manufacturers.
It explains to the Court that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, barring EPA from considering costs and benefits, would
frustrate congressional intent and result in unnecessary regulatory burdens
not only for electric utility cooling water intake structures, but also for
cooling water intake structures at industrial facilities and even potentially
for wastewater discharges. For a copy of the brief, click here. A summary
of the case and copies of other briefs filed in the case are available at http:
//www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._EPA.
August 29, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, in a split decision, reversed the District Court and upheld the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's position that it has authority to prevent private
parties from testing their cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE). The majority deferred to USDA's interpretation of the Virus Serum
Toxin Act as allowing USDA to restrict the use of BSE test kits. Chief Judge
Sentelle wrote a dissent that agreed with the arguments that Russ Frye had
made in briefs and at oral argument. FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef now can return to District Court to pursue its remaining
claim, that even if USDA has legal capacity to prevent Creekstone from
testing, it was arbitrary and capricious for USDA to do so. For a copy of the
D.C. Circuit opinion, click here. To read a copy of the Legal Times online
article on the decision, quoting Russ Frye, click here.
July 3, 2008: Russell Frye was successful in obtaining another preliminary
injunction against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's regulations on
imports of beef from Canada, a country with continuing discoveries of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or Mad Cow disease. FryeLaw
PLLC is lead counsel in an action in federal district court for the District of
South Dakota, in which District Judge Lawrence Piersol ruled that five
ranchers and consumers orgainzations have shown a likelihood of success on
their claim that USDA issued new regulations in the fall of 2007--allowing
imports of beef from Canadian cattle of all ages--without complying with
the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Piersol remanded the regulations
to USDA for it to conduct a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. For a
copy of the District Court's decision, click here. For the Bloomberg News
report on the decision, click here.
June 18-19, 2008: Editorials in both the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas
Morning News this week supported FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef's litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's refusal
to allow Creekstone to test its cattle for Mad Cow disease. After obtaining
a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that
USDA was acting unlawfully, Russ Frye recently argued against USDA's appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A decision will
likely be issued this fall. Click here to read the LA Times editorial and click
here to read the Dallas Morning News editorial.
June 13, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in
Atlanta, Georgia issued an opinion in Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. EPA, No. 07-
10693. The Court remanded to EPA its determination that the energy
system for LP's new oriented strand board mill in Clarke County, Alabama is
subject to Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
industrial boilers. Russ Frye helped LP request an NSPS applicability
determination for the innovative design of the new mill's bark burner,
thermal oil heater, and flake dryer system, and then he briefed and argued
the case in the Eleventh Circuit challenging EPA's determination. The Court
held that EPA's definition of "steam generating unit" is broad enough to
encompass the new mill's energy system, but that EPA did not have an
adequate response to LP's argument that the system meets EPA's description
of exempt "process heaters." For a copy of the decision, click here. To
read an article about the decision in Energy Law 360, quoting Russell Frye,
click here (free trial subscription required).
May 9, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
held oral argument on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's appeal of a
district court decision favoring FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef. The three-judge panel considered USDA's attempt to
overturn the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's decision last
year that USDA cannot lawfully prevent Creekstone from testing the cattle it
slaughters for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow disease.
Creekstone Farms Premim Beef, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 517 F.
Supp.2d 8. Creekstone argued that it is particularly inappropriate for USDA
to block Creekstone's testing at a time when consumers in Korea are
demonstrating against their government's plans to resume imports of U.S.
beef, out of misguided fears that U.S. beef is unsafe because of BSE.
During oral argument, Russell Frye noted that Japanese consumers are more
worried about beef from the U.S., where BSE has only been found in U.S.-
born cattle twice, and both times in animals born before 1997, than they
are about beef from Japanese cattle, 30 of which have been found to be
infected with BSE in recent years, but all of which are tested at slaughter.
To read articles on the case, quoting Russ Frye, published by the Associated
Press and Bloomberg News, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050900625.html and
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601101&sid=a798RwAI5fyg&refer=japan.
April 14, 2008: The Los Angeles Times ran a lengthy story about the Sierra
Club's nationwide initiative to object to permits for new and expanded
fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Among other things, the story discussed the
Sierra Club's challenge in the EPA Environmental Appeals Board to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for a power plant
expansion in Utah. FryeLaw PLLC prepared an amicus curiae brief in that
permit appeal, In re. Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, EAB PSD Appeal
No. 07-03, supporting EPA. The industry associations filing that amicus brief
argued that EPA need not impose Best Available Control Technology for
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are not yet
"regulated NSR pollutants." If the PSD regulations were held to apply
currently to greenhouse gases, without further rulemaking, thousands of
new facilities, including many small businesses, would suddenly need PSD
permits for many types of modifications. To see a copy of that brief,
click here.
An excerpt of the LA Times story, quoting Russ Frye, follows:
"Where it's going to be precedential, we will be getting involved," said
Russell Frye, who filed a half-inch-thick brief last month that supports the
power plant on behalf of seven powerful trade associations, including the
American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
the American Chemistry Council and the National Assn. of Manufacturers.
Various business groups are discussing how to handle the environmentalists'
challenges in a more comprehensive way, but industry sources said their
members have such a wide range of positions on climate change that it's
been difficult. Some suggest bringing conspiracy charges against the
environmentalists if they can find instances in which the national groups
recruited locals to allow them to file legal papers that they couldn't have
filed otherwise. But "no one has the guts," said one industry lawyer.
Instead, Collins and two law partners wrote an article for the spring 2008
issue of the American Bar Assn.'s natural resources journal, advising clients
to build in schedule and budget delays due to litigation -- because it is
inevitable.
"It's good for lawyers. It's good for me," said Frye. "But it's not particularly
constructive to have all these symbolic gestures that may gum up the works
but won't necessarily advance what we as a society ought to be doing."
Stopping the Bonanza plant, he said, "might not give you more bang for the
buck than controlling an existing source" of carbon dioxide emissions, "or
replacing light bulbs."
To read the whole article, go to: http://www.latimes.
com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-coalwars14apr14,1,1861789.story.
February 19, 2008: Russell Frye argued a motion for preliminary injunction
in a case getting national and international attention, asking a federal judge
in South Dakota to halt imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months old and
imports of beef from older Canadian cattle. The lawsuit, brought by two
groups of U.S. cattle producers and four national consumer groups, argues
that older cattle from Canada are far more likely to be infected with Mad
Cow disease, and that the United States should not be importing potentially
infected cattle and meat. USDA's own model predicts 5 infected cattle may
be imported during the first year of the new regulations that the lawsuit
seeks to postpone. To read the Associated Press article on the preliminary
injunction hearing, quoting Russell Frye, click here.
The case has gotten increased attention in the wake of a massive recall of
beef from a Calfornia meatpacking plant, after an undercover
representative of the Humane Society of America documented that cattle
unable to walk (one of the signs of Mad Cow disease) were being dragged
and forced to slaughter. There apparently was a continuing practice at the
plant of violating the regulations that USDA assumes will help protect U.S.
cattle and consumers from Mad Cow disease and the human equivalent when
infected cattle are imported from Canada. The plaintiffs argue that this
incident confirms comments made to USDA during the development of the
challenged rule, that USDA was greatly overestimating how much protection
from BSE would actually be provided by its regulations. (To read the
Washington Post story about the problems at the California plant, with a
link to the Humane Society video of improper practices at the plant, click
here.)
December 3, 2007: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in the
United States Supreme Court in support of two petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review a decision earlier this year of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The cases, PSEG Fossil LLC v. Riverkeeper,
No. 07-589, and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, No. 07-597,
challenge the Second Circuit's decision striking down much of EPA's
requirements for cooling water intake structures for large electric utilities.
The Second Circuit found that EPA must select, as the "best technology for
minimizing adverse environmental impact" under Clean Water Act section
316(b), the technology which impacts the fewest aquatic organisms, even if
its costs are wholly disproportionate to any benefits. Significantly, in
reaching this conclusion the Second Circuit also interpreted the Clean Water
Act's provisions for setting effluent limitations for wastewater dischargers as
prohibiting almost any consideration of the relationship between costs and
benefits, as well. The court also struck down an EPA regulation that
allowed a facility to substitute measures to improve the in-stream fish
population for costly technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment
of organisms in the intake structure itself.
For a copy of the Second Circuit's decision, Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475
F.3d 83 (2007), click here. For a copy of the amicus brief prepared by
FryeLaw PLLC in support of Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit
decision, filed on behalf of the Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition
(American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association,
American Petroleum Institute, and National Association of Manufacturers) and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, click here.
October 29, 2007: The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, and
others reported on the filing of an action, in U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, seeking to enjoin a new U.S. Department of
Agriculture rule relaxing prohibitions on importing older cattle, and beef
from older cattle, originating in Canada. Russ Frye is the lead counsel for a
number of groups and individuals, including Consumer Federation of
America, Food and Water Watch, and the South Dakota Stockgrowers
Association, seeking judicial review of USDA's action because of the risk of
importing the infectious agent for Mad Cow disease into the U.S. (The U.S.
Center for Disease Control reports that Canadian cattle are 18 to 48 times
more likely to test positive for Mad Cow disease than U.S. cattle.) To read
the International Herald Tribune's story on the lawsuit, click here.
June 25, 2007: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a closely-watched case involving a
potential conflict between the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
Act, National Association of Home Builders, et al. v. Defenders of Wildlife,
et al., Nos. 06-340 and 06-549. The Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the
Endangered Species Act requirement that federal agencies consult with the
Fish & Wildlife Service and avoid actions that could jeopardize endangered
species could not be cited as a reason to disapprove a state wastewater
discharge permitting (NPDES) program that meets the criteria for approval
in the federal Clean Water Act. Importantly, the Court stated that the
Endangered Species Act section 7 requirements to consult and avoid
jeopardy do not apply to a non-discretionary agency action, where Congress
has directed the agency to act once certain conditions are met. For a copy
of the Supreme Court opinion, click here.
Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, stated:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of the Endangered Species
Act is a huge victory for states’ rights and property owners in America. The
Court took a strong stand against judicial activism in overturning a Ninth
Circuit Court decision that would have essentially voided a section of the
Clean Water Act.”
In addition to the United States, the parties that participated in the Ninth
Circuit case and successfully sought Supreme Court review included the
National Association of Home Builders and a coalition represented by
FryeLaw PLLC, consisting of Arizona Association of Industries, Arizona
Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Mining Association, Greater Phoenix
Chamber of Commerce, and American Forest & Paper Association. To read
USA Today’s article on the decision, click here.
June 5, 2007: On "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central, Stephen
Colbert's monologue focused in part on a case being handled by FryeLaw
PLLC. Colbert makes fun of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
that USDA is acting unlawfully by preventing FryeLaw PLLC client
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef from testing its cattle for Mad Cow
disease. Colbert suggests that, to be successful in an appeal, USDA may
need to amend its mission statement to get rid of all that unnecessary stuff
about providing leadership on agricultural issues, promoting sound science,
and the like.
April 17, 2007: Russ Frye spoke to the spring meeting of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce’s Environment and Energy Committee in
Washington, DC, titled: “Perspectives on Climate Change.” Russ discussed
the Supreme Court’s landmark decision concerning regulation of greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act, Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438, and the
steps that forward-thinking companies may want to take in response to the
decision and the climate change issue generally. Other speakers included
the CEOs of Resources for the Future and Duke Energy and of seven national
trade associations. For more information on the Chamber of Commerce
meeting and a copy of Russ’s presentation, click here.
Russ also participated that week in national teleconferences about the
decision sponsored by the American Bar Association and West Publishing.
(For a description of the West Legal Ed Center teleconference, click here.)
April 2, 2007: The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438, widely heralded as a landmark
decision and among the most important cases before the Court this term or
even this decade. By a 5-4 majority, the Court held that the definition of
“air pollutant” is broad enough to include carbon dioxide and other
“greenhouse gases” believed to contribute to global climate change and
that EPA must regulate emissions of such greenhouse gases from motor
vehicles if EPA finds that those emissions may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. FryeLaw PLLC represented one of the
parties to the case, the CO2 Litigation Group, which intervened to support
EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act was not intended to provide the
mechanisms to address global climate change. Members of the CO2
Litigation Group included the American Chemistry Council, American Forest
& Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the
Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, Portland
Cement Association, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of
America, the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, and the Steel
Manufacturers Association. For a copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion, click
here.
April 2007: The April issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a
monthly peer-reviewed journal of the United States government’s National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, quoted Russ Frye extensively on
the subject of climate change litigation and the then-pending Massachusetts
v. EPA Supreme Court case specifically. A portion of the quotes are
reproduced here:
“When you’re talking about how the United States in particular ought to
respond to a concern that’s raised by emissions and developments
throughout the world and not just the United States, it’s hard for individual
states or environmental groups to show that the relief they’re seeking will
redress their injury,” he says….Furthermore, he says, climate change
plaintiffs “are raising questions that are not for the court to resolve.
Certainly, I don’t think the founding fathers thought that the judicial branch
was where policies like this should be made.”
To read a copy of the article, click here.
March 29, 2007: Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC announced today
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture must allow private industry to test
cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“BSE” or “mad cow
disease”). According to a ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robertson
of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the USDA’s
“prohibition of the private use of rapid test kits to screen cattle for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy is unlawful.” (Creekstone Farms Premium
Beef, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al., Civil Action No. 06-0544).
Russ Frye is Creekstone’s lead counsel in this case (which USDA has
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
To read the International Herald Tribune’s article on the District Court's
decision, click here.
Fall 2006: Developments in Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice
2004-2005, a book published by the American Bar Association Section on
Administrative Law, lists the R-CALF USA v. USDA 9th Circuit preliminary
injunction case, in which FryeLaw PLLC was R-CALF USA’s lead counsel, as
one of half a dozen or so “leading cases” for the period in environmental
and natural resources law.
September 6, 2006: The Supreme Court is being asked to review a
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with serious
ramifications for Clean Water Act programs and indeed many federal
programs, Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d.946, rehearing denied 450
F.3d 394. The Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's approval of Arizona's program to
issue Clean Water Act discharge permits (NPDES permits), on the grounds
that the Endangered Species Act precluded delegation of the permitting
program because transferring permitting to the state would remove NPDES
permitting from the protections provided for federal actions under the
Endangered Species Act.
The Ninth Circuit reached this result even though the Clean Water Act
mandates approval of state permitting programs that meet nine enumerated
criteria (and there was no dispute that Arizona's program did)--concluding
that the Endangered Species Act provides an independent requirement to
avoid jeopardy to listed species of damage to critical habitat even for
federal actions mandated by another statute. The petitioners include the
State of Arizona, the National Association of Homebuilders, and a group of
organizations represented by FryeLaw PLLC--Arizona Association of
Industries, Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Mining Association,
Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, and American Forest & Paper
Association. For a copy of the petition for certiorari, click here.
August 31, 2006: A dozen states and numerous environmental advocacy
groups filed their opening brief in what the Washington Post (July 2, 2006
p. B2) has called “next year's big greenhouse gases case" in the U.S.
Supreme Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120. The
case is an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s
determination that EPA is not obligated under the Clean Air Act to
commence a rulemaking to limit emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, methane, etc.) from motor vehicles. But the case also has
potential ramifications for regulation of stationary sources under the Clean
Air Act, as well as for various state laws that are beginning to address
greenhouse gas emissions.
FryeLaw PLLC represents one of the parties to the case, the CO2 Litigation
Group, which supports EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act was not
intended to provide the mechanisms to address global climate change.
Members of the CO2 Litigation Group include the American Chemistry
Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel
Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Road and Transportation
Builders Association, the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce of
the United States, National Association of Convenience Stores, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association, Portland Cement Association, the Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America, the Specialty Steel Industry of North
America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association.
Oral argument in the case is scheduled for November 29, 2006. For an
article describing the case, go to The Washington Post. For copies of the
briefs of the parties and amicus curiae briefs, click here.
March 26, 2006: Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC filed an action in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a determination
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture must desist from preventing
Creekstone Farms from testing the cattle it slaughters for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (commonly known as Mad Cow disease). Creekstone Farms'
customers, especially Japanese consumers, have asked for beef from cattle
that have been tested for Mad Cow disease, but USDA insists that only
laboratories authorized by and conducting testing for USDA can have access
to the tests.
Russell Frye is the lead counsel for Creekstone Farms. For news stories
about the case, click here. For editorials from major newspapers
supporting Creekstone Farms’ action, click here.
The May 2005 Meat Marketing & Technology magazine comments on
Russ Frye’s role in the Mad Cow disease controversy:
“In addition to its five employees, and a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.,
R-CALF has retained two attorneys, D.C.-based Russell Frye and William
Miller, who by all accounts are very committed to their client's causes.
It almost goes without saying that Frye and Miller also are extremely
effective.” For the full article, click here.
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that would
have virtually eliminated EPA's ability to consider the relationship of
compliance costs with benefits when establishing standards for cooling
water intake structures under Clean Water Act section 316(b), Entergy Corp.
V. EPA, No. 07-588. When EPA set nationwide standards for existing, larger
power plants, it declined to require technology that would provide only a
relatively small additional reduction in entrainment and impingement
mortality of aquatic life, but would have cost utilities [and their customers]
$3.5 billion a year. Adopting an argument that FryeLaw PLLC had
highlighted in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of American Chemistry
Council, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute,
National Association of Manufacturers, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Court found that standards for intake structures need not meet the same
criteria as the Act's most-stringent, Best Available Technology (BAT)
standard for wastewater discharges. As for the Second Circuit's assertion
that BAT effluent guidelines could not balance costs and benefits, the Court
said it did not need to reach that issue, but added: "It is not obvious to us
that [the Second Circuit's interpretation is] correct,"
This decision affects not only existing large power plants, but also existing
industrial cooling water intakes and smaller power plants, as well as new
facilities that withdraw less than 2 mgd per day. Under EPA regulations,
the permitting authority may impose requirements for intake structures at
those facilities on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis. The
Second Circuit's restrictive view of the role of costs and benefits in
implementing section 316(b) could have been viewed as constraining those
case-by-case determinations as well. Click here for a copy of the Supreme
Court opinion. To read an article about the decision in the Washington
Post, click here. For a copy of the amicus brief prepared by FryeLaw PLLC,
click here.
September 12, 2008: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in a key
case pending before the Environmental Appeals Board, Deseret Power
Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 07-03. In that case, the Sierra Club is
challenging a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued
under the Clean Air Act for a power plant expansion, on the grounds that
the permit should have required Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
limits for carbon dioxide. This amicus brief, filed on behalf of American
Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council, American Royalty Council,
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Oilseed Processors Association, and
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, as well as a previous brief in
the case filed March 21, 2008, refutes the Sierra Club argument that BACT
requirements have already been triggered by EPA regulations requiring
power plants to monitor for carbon dioxide. The amici also urge the
Environmental Appeals Board not to question the validity of EPA’s PSD
regulations, which already were subject to judicial review in the Court of
Appeals, and not to impose unilaterally a huge expansion of the universe of
new and modified sources for which preconstruction PSD permits would be
required. For copies of the briefs prepared by FryeLaw PLLC, click here
and here. Copies of other briefs filed in the case can be obtained from the
Environmental Appeals Board website at http://yosemite.epa.
gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.
nsf/f22b4b245fab46c6852570e6004df1bd/c38150f6c4bba3608525736900687af4!
OpenDocument.
July 21, 2008: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in a case the
United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on December 2, 2008,
Entergy Corp., et al. v. EPA, Nos. 07-588, 07-589, and 07-597. The question
the Supreme Court has agreed to consider is whether EPA can consider
costs and benefits in establishing the "best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact” of cooling water intake
structures, under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The amicus brief
was filed on behalf of American Chemistry Council, American Forest &
Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America, and National Association of Manufacturers.
It explains to the Court that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, barring EPA from considering costs and benefits, would
frustrate congressional intent and result in unnecessary regulatory burdens
not only for electric utility cooling water intake structures, but also for
cooling water intake structures at industrial facilities and even potentially
for wastewater discharges. For a copy of the brief, click here. A summary
of the case and copies of other briefs filed in the case are available at http:
//www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._EPA.
August 29, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, in a split decision, reversed the District Court and upheld the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's position that it has authority to prevent private
parties from testing their cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE). The majority deferred to USDA's interpretation of the Virus Serum
Toxin Act as allowing USDA to restrict the use of BSE test kits. Chief Judge
Sentelle wrote a dissent that agreed with the arguments that Russ Frye had
made in briefs and at oral argument. FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef now can return to District Court to pursue its remaining
claim, that even if USDA has legal capacity to prevent Creekstone from
testing, it was arbitrary and capricious for USDA to do so. For a copy of the
D.C. Circuit opinion, click here. To read a copy of the Legal Times online
article on the decision, quoting Russ Frye, click here.
July 3, 2008: Russell Frye was successful in obtaining another preliminary
injunction against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's regulations on
imports of beef from Canada, a country with continuing discoveries of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or Mad Cow disease. FryeLaw
PLLC is lead counsel in an action in federal district court for the District of
South Dakota, in which District Judge Lawrence Piersol ruled that five
ranchers and consumers orgainzations have shown a likelihood of success on
their claim that USDA issued new regulations in the fall of 2007--allowing
imports of beef from Canadian cattle of all ages--without complying with
the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Piersol remanded the regulations
to USDA for it to conduct a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. For a
copy of the District Court's decision, click here. For the Bloomberg News
report on the decision, click here.
June 18-19, 2008: Editorials in both the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas
Morning News this week supported FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef's litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's refusal
to allow Creekstone to test its cattle for Mad Cow disease. After obtaining
a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that
USDA was acting unlawfully, Russ Frye recently argued against USDA's appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A decision will
likely be issued this fall. Click here to read the LA Times editorial and click
here to read the Dallas Morning News editorial.
June 13, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in
Atlanta, Georgia issued an opinion in Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. EPA, No. 07-
10693. The Court remanded to EPA its determination that the energy
system for LP's new oriented strand board mill in Clarke County, Alabama is
subject to Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
industrial boilers. Russ Frye helped LP request an NSPS applicability
determination for the innovative design of the new mill's bark burner,
thermal oil heater, and flake dryer system, and then he briefed and argued
the case in the Eleventh Circuit challenging EPA's determination. The Court
held that EPA's definition of "steam generating unit" is broad enough to
encompass the new mill's energy system, but that EPA did not have an
adequate response to LP's argument that the system meets EPA's description
of exempt "process heaters." For a copy of the decision, click here. To
read an article about the decision in Energy Law 360, quoting Russell Frye,
click here (free trial subscription required).
May 9, 2008: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
held oral argument on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's appeal of a
district court decision favoring FryeLaw PLLC client Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef. The three-judge panel considered USDA's attempt to
overturn the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's decision last
year that USDA cannot lawfully prevent Creekstone from testing the cattle it
slaughters for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow disease.
Creekstone Farms Premim Beef, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 517 F.
Supp.2d 8. Creekstone argued that it is particularly inappropriate for USDA
to block Creekstone's testing at a time when consumers in Korea are
demonstrating against their government's plans to resume imports of U.S.
beef, out of misguided fears that U.S. beef is unsafe because of BSE.
During oral argument, Russell Frye noted that Japanese consumers are more
worried about beef from the U.S., where BSE has only been found in U.S.-
born cattle twice, and both times in animals born before 1997, than they
are about beef from Japanese cattle, 30 of which have been found to be
infected with BSE in recent years, but all of which are tested at slaughter.
To read articles on the case, quoting Russ Frye, published by the Associated
Press and Bloomberg News, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050900625.html and
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601101&sid=a798RwAI5fyg&refer=japan.
April 14, 2008: The Los Angeles Times ran a lengthy story about the Sierra
Club's nationwide initiative to object to permits for new and expanded
fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Among other things, the story discussed the
Sierra Club's challenge in the EPA Environmental Appeals Board to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for a power plant
expansion in Utah. FryeLaw PLLC prepared an amicus curiae brief in that
permit appeal, In re. Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, EAB PSD Appeal
No. 07-03, supporting EPA. The industry associations filing that amicus brief
argued that EPA need not impose Best Available Control Technology for
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are not yet
"regulated NSR pollutants." If the PSD regulations were held to apply
currently to greenhouse gases, without further rulemaking, thousands of
new facilities, including many small businesses, would suddenly need PSD
permits for many types of modifications. To see a copy of that brief,
click here.
An excerpt of the LA Times story, quoting Russ Frye, follows:
"Where it's going to be precedential, we will be getting involved," said
Russell Frye, who filed a half-inch-thick brief last month that supports the
power plant on behalf of seven powerful trade associations, including the
American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
the American Chemistry Council and the National Assn. of Manufacturers.
Various business groups are discussing how to handle the environmentalists'
challenges in a more comprehensive way, but industry sources said their
members have such a wide range of positions on climate change that it's
been difficult. Some suggest bringing conspiracy charges against the
environmentalists if they can find instances in which the national groups
recruited locals to allow them to file legal papers that they couldn't have
filed otherwise. But "no one has the guts," said one industry lawyer.
Instead, Collins and two law partners wrote an article for the spring 2008
issue of the American Bar Assn.'s natural resources journal, advising clients
to build in schedule and budget delays due to litigation -- because it is
inevitable.
"It's good for lawyers. It's good for me," said Frye. "But it's not particularly
constructive to have all these symbolic gestures that may gum up the works
but won't necessarily advance what we as a society ought to be doing."
Stopping the Bonanza plant, he said, "might not give you more bang for the
buck than controlling an existing source" of carbon dioxide emissions, "or
replacing light bulbs."
To read the whole article, go to: http://www.latimes.
com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-coalwars14apr14,1,1861789.story.
February 19, 2008: Russell Frye argued a motion for preliminary injunction
in a case getting national and international attention, asking a federal judge
in South Dakota to halt imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months old and
imports of beef from older Canadian cattle. The lawsuit, brought by two
groups of U.S. cattle producers and four national consumer groups, argues
that older cattle from Canada are far more likely to be infected with Mad
Cow disease, and that the United States should not be importing potentially
infected cattle and meat. USDA's own model predicts 5 infected cattle may
be imported during the first year of the new regulations that the lawsuit
seeks to postpone. To read the Associated Press article on the preliminary
injunction hearing, quoting Russell Frye, click here.
The case has gotten increased attention in the wake of a massive recall of
beef from a Calfornia meatpacking plant, after an undercover
representative of the Humane Society of America documented that cattle
unable to walk (one of the signs of Mad Cow disease) were being dragged
and forced to slaughter. There apparently was a continuing practice at the
plant of violating the regulations that USDA assumes will help protect U.S.
cattle and consumers from Mad Cow disease and the human equivalent when
infected cattle are imported from Canada. The plaintiffs argue that this
incident confirms comments made to USDA during the development of the
challenged rule, that USDA was greatly overestimating how much protection
from BSE would actually be provided by its regulations. (To read the
Washington Post story about the problems at the California plant, with a
link to the Humane Society video of improper practices at the plant, click
here.)
December 3, 2007: FryeLaw PLLC filed an amicus curiae brief in the
United States Supreme Court in support of two petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review a decision earlier this year of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The cases, PSEG Fossil LLC v. Riverkeeper,
No. 07-589, and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, No. 07-597,
challenge the Second Circuit's decision striking down much of EPA's
requirements for cooling water intake structures for large electric utilities.
The Second Circuit found that EPA must select, as the "best technology for
minimizing adverse environmental impact" under Clean Water Act section
316(b), the technology which impacts the fewest aquatic organisms, even if
its costs are wholly disproportionate to any benefits. Significantly, in
reaching this conclusion the Second Circuit also interpreted the Clean Water
Act's provisions for setting effluent limitations for wastewater dischargers as
prohibiting almost any consideration of the relationship between costs and
benefits, as well. The court also struck down an EPA regulation that
allowed a facility to substitute measures to improve the in-stream fish
population for costly technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment
of organisms in the intake structure itself.
For a copy of the Second Circuit's decision, Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475
F.3d 83 (2007), click here. For a copy of the amicus brief prepared by
FryeLaw PLLC in support of Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit
decision, filed on behalf of the Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition
(American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association,
American Petroleum Institute, and National Association of Manufacturers) and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, click here.
October 29, 2007: The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, and
others reported on the filing of an action, in U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, seeking to enjoin a new U.S. Department of
Agriculture rule relaxing prohibitions on importing older cattle, and beef
from older cattle, originating in Canada. Russ Frye is the lead counsel for a
number of groups and individuals, including Consumer Federation of
America, Food and Water Watch, and the South Dakota Stockgrowers
Association, seeking judicial review of USDA's action because of the risk of
importing the infectious agent for Mad Cow disease into the U.S. (The U.S.
Center for Disease Control reports that Canadian cattle are 18 to 48 times
more likely to test positive for Mad Cow disease than U.S. cattle.) To read
the International Herald Tribune's story on the lawsuit, click here.
June 25, 2007: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a closely-watched case involving a
potential conflict between the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
Act, National Association of Home Builders, et al. v. Defenders of Wildlife,
et al., Nos. 06-340 and 06-549. The Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the
Endangered Species Act requirement that federal agencies consult with the
Fish & Wildlife Service and avoid actions that could jeopardize endangered
species could not be cited as a reason to disapprove a state wastewater
discharge permitting (NPDES) program that meets the criteria for approval
in the federal Clean Water Act. Importantly, the Court stated that the
Endangered Species Act section 7 requirements to consult and avoid
jeopardy do not apply to a non-discretionary agency action, where Congress
has directed the agency to act once certain conditions are met. For a copy
of the Supreme Court opinion, click here.
Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, stated:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of the Endangered Species
Act is a huge victory for states’ rights and property owners in America. The
Court took a strong stand against judicial activism in overturning a Ninth
Circuit Court decision that would have essentially voided a section of the
Clean Water Act.”
In addition to the United States, the parties that participated in the Ninth
Circuit case and successfully sought Supreme Court review included the
National Association of Home Builders and a coalition represented by
FryeLaw PLLC, consisting of Arizona Association of Industries, Arizona
Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Mining Association, Greater Phoenix
Chamber of Commerce, and American Forest & Paper Association. To read
USA Today’s article on the decision, click here.
June 5, 2007: On "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central, Stephen
Colbert's monologue focused in part on a case being handled by FryeLaw
PLLC. Colbert makes fun of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
that USDA is acting unlawfully by preventing FryeLaw PLLC client
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef from testing its cattle for Mad Cow
disease. Colbert suggests that, to be successful in an appeal, USDA may
need to amend its mission statement to get rid of all that unnecessary stuff
about providing leadership on agricultural issues, promoting sound science,
and the like.
April 17, 2007: Russ Frye spoke to the spring meeting of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce’s Environment and Energy Committee in
Washington, DC, titled: “Perspectives on Climate Change.” Russ discussed
the Supreme Court’s landmark decision concerning regulation of greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act, Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438, and the
steps that forward-thinking companies may want to take in response to the
decision and the climate change issue generally. Other speakers included
the CEOs of Resources for the Future and Duke Energy and of seven national
trade associations. For more information on the Chamber of Commerce
meeting and a copy of Russ’s presentation, click here.
Russ also participated that week in national teleconferences about the
decision sponsored by the American Bar Association and West Publishing.
(For a description of the West Legal Ed Center teleconference, click here.)
April 2, 2007: The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438, widely heralded as a landmark
decision and among the most important cases before the Court this term or
even this decade. By a 5-4 majority, the Court held that the definition of
“air pollutant” is broad enough to include carbon dioxide and other
“greenhouse gases” believed to contribute to global climate change and
that EPA must regulate emissions of such greenhouse gases from motor
vehicles if EPA finds that those emissions may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. FryeLaw PLLC represented one of the
parties to the case, the CO2 Litigation Group, which intervened to support
EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act was not intended to provide the
mechanisms to address global climate change. Members of the CO2
Litigation Group included the American Chemistry Council, American Forest
& Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the
Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of
Manufacturers, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, Portland
Cement Association, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of
America, the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, and the Steel
Manufacturers Association. For a copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion, click
here.
April 2007: The April issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a
monthly peer-reviewed journal of the United States government’s National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, quoted Russ Frye extensively on
the subject of climate change litigation and the then-pending Massachusetts
v. EPA Supreme Court case specifically. A portion of the quotes are
reproduced here:
“When you’re talking about how the United States in particular ought to
respond to a concern that’s raised by emissions and developments
throughout the world and not just the United States, it’s hard for individual
states or environmental groups to show that the relief they’re seeking will
redress their injury,” he says….Furthermore, he says, climate change
plaintiffs “are raising questions that are not for the court to resolve.
Certainly, I don’t think the founding fathers thought that the judicial branch
was where policies like this should be made.”
To read a copy of the article, click here.
March 29, 2007: Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC announced today
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture must allow private industry to test
cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“BSE” or “mad cow
disease”). According to a ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robertson
of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the USDA’s
“prohibition of the private use of rapid test kits to screen cattle for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy is unlawful.” (Creekstone Farms Premium
Beef, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al., Civil Action No. 06-0544).
Russ Frye is Creekstone’s lead counsel in this case (which USDA has
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
To read the International Herald Tribune’s article on the District Court's
decision, click here.
Fall 2006: Developments in Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice
2004-2005, a book published by the American Bar Association Section on
Administrative Law, lists the R-CALF USA v. USDA 9th Circuit preliminary
injunction case, in which FryeLaw PLLC was R-CALF USA’s lead counsel, as
one of half a dozen or so “leading cases” for the period in environmental
and natural resources law.
September 6, 2006: The Supreme Court is being asked to review a
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with serious
ramifications for Clean Water Act programs and indeed many federal
programs, Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d.946, rehearing denied 450
F.3d 394. The Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's approval of Arizona's program to
issue Clean Water Act discharge permits (NPDES permits), on the grounds
that the Endangered Species Act precluded delegation of the permitting
program because transferring permitting to the state would remove NPDES
permitting from the protections provided for federal actions under the
Endangered Species Act.
The Ninth Circuit reached this result even though the Clean Water Act
mandates approval of state permitting programs that meet nine enumerated
criteria (and there was no dispute that Arizona's program did)--concluding
that the Endangered Species Act provides an independent requirement to
avoid jeopardy to listed species of damage to critical habitat even for
federal actions mandated by another statute. The petitioners include the
State of Arizona, the National Association of Homebuilders, and a group of
organizations represented by FryeLaw PLLC--Arizona Association of
Industries, Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Mining Association,
Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, and American Forest & Paper
Association. For a copy of the petition for certiorari, click here.
August 31, 2006: A dozen states and numerous environmental advocacy
groups filed their opening brief in what the Washington Post (July 2, 2006
p. B2) has called “next year's big greenhouse gases case" in the U.S.
Supreme Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120. The
case is an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s
determination that EPA is not obligated under the Clean Air Act to
commence a rulemaking to limit emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, methane, etc.) from motor vehicles. But the case also has
potential ramifications for regulation of stationary sources under the Clean
Air Act, as well as for various state laws that are beginning to address
greenhouse gas emissions.
FryeLaw PLLC represents one of the parties to the case, the CO2 Litigation
Group, which supports EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act was not
intended to provide the mechanisms to address global climate change.
Members of the CO2 Litigation Group include the American Chemistry
Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel
Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Road and Transportation
Builders Association, the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce of
the United States, National Association of Convenience Stores, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association, Portland Cement Association, the Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America, the Specialty Steel Industry of North
America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association.
Oral argument in the case is scheduled for November 29, 2006. For an
article describing the case, go to The Washington Post. For copies of the
briefs of the parties and amicus curiae briefs, click here.
March 26, 2006: Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC filed an action in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a determination
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture must desist from preventing
Creekstone Farms from testing the cattle it slaughters for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (commonly known as Mad Cow disease). Creekstone Farms'
customers, especially Japanese consumers, have asked for beef from cattle
that have been tested for Mad Cow disease, but USDA insists that only
laboratories authorized by and conducting testing for USDA can have access
to the tests.
Russell Frye is the lead counsel for Creekstone Farms. For news stories
about the case, click here. For editorials from major newspapers
supporting Creekstone Farms’ action, click here.
The May 2005 Meat Marketing & Technology magazine comments on
Russ Frye’s role in the Mad Cow disease controversy:
“In addition to its five employees, and a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.,
R-CALF has retained two attorneys, D.C.-based Russell Frye and William
Miller, who by all accounts are very committed to their client's causes.
It almost goes without saying that Frye and Miller also are extremely
effective.” For the full article, click here.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
March 24, 2005: FryeLaw PLLC submits comments
to EPA on proposed regulations for cooling water
intake structures, on behalf of the American
Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper
Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute,
the American Petroleum Institute, the American
Public Power Association, and the Utility Water Act
Group. (Click here for copy of comments.)
to EPA on proposed regulations for cooling water
intake structures, on behalf of the American
Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper
Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute,
the American Petroleum Institute, the American
Public Power Association, and the Utility Water Act
Group. (Click here for copy of comments.)
U.S. Judge Delays Plan to Allow Canada
Cattle Imports (Update3)
Montana delayed the U.S. government's plan to
resume importing cattle from Canada until a
full hearing can be held on allegations the
animals pose a risk to public health because of
mad cow disease.
Cattle Imports (Update3)
Montana delayed the U.S. government's plan to
resume importing cattle from Canada until a
full hearing can be held on allegations the
animals pose a risk to public health because of
mad cow disease.
Click here to read the full article, quoting Russell Frye, attorney for the
plaintiffs.
plaintiffs.
| Russell Frye quoted in Legal Times 1/31/05 article on Clean Air Act New Source Review litigation Click here to read the full article. |
Copyright FryeLaw PLLC 2005-2008. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS SITE IS INTENDED TO EDUCATE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL LEGAL PROBLEMS, NOR TO CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE READ OUR DISCLAIMER PAGE. |
 |
Articles and
Documents
Documents
 |
