Alaska Wilderness League v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
42 U.S.C. § 7661c(e) is ambiguous as to whether “increment” requirements are “applicable” to a temporary source like Shell Offshore, Inc.’s (“Shell”) drill vessel Kulluk. Accordingly, we defer to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board’s (“EAB”) reasonable interpretation of § 7661c(e). See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The EAB reasonably concluded that Shell need not analyze the Kulluk’s potential impact on increment before obtaining an oil exploration permit. We also deny the petition…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. McClellanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham NationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- J.B. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Francisco Garcia-Mendez v. Loretta E. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- John Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Friends of Animals v. HaalandDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.