(a) It is hereby established as the policy of the Department of Justice to consent to a proposed judgment in an action to enjoin discharges of pollutants into the environment only after or on condition that an opportunity is afforded persons (natural or corporate) who are not named as parties to the action to comment on the proposed judgment prior to its entry by the court.
(b) To effectuate this policy, each proposed judgment which is within the scope of paragraph (a) of this section shall be lodged with the court as early as feasible but at least 30 days before the judgment is entered by the court. Prior to entry of the judgment, or some earlier specified date, the Department of Justice will receive and consider, and file with the court, any written comments, views or allegations relating to the proposed judgment. The Department shall reserve the right (1) to withdraw or withhold its consent to the proposed judgment if the comments, views and allegations concerning the judgment disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed judgment is inappropriate, improper or inadequate and (2) to oppose an attempt by any person to intervene in the action.
(c) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land and Natural Resources Division may establish procedures for implementing this policy. Where it is clear that the public interest in the policy hereby established is not compromised, the Assistant Attorney General may permit an exception to this policy in a specific case where extraordinary circumstances require a period shorter than 30 days or a procedure other than stated herein.
[Order No. 529-73, 38 FR 19029, July 17, 1973]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Conservation Chem. Co., 628 F. Supp. 391 (W.D. Mo. 1986).
· cites it 4× “In this regard, it is assumed that prior to approval of that consent decree, the government will comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 , a regulation of the Justice Department, which provides as follows: (a) It is hereby established as the policy of the Department of…”
Karr v. Hefner, 475 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Nor did they object to the consent decree during the 30-day public-comment period provided by 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 . Later on the same day on which the EPA filed its enforcement action, Plaintiffs filed their second complaint.”
Env't Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008).
“See 28 C.F.R. 50.7. ECO did not oppose entry of the consent decree, but expressed concern that the punitive provisions and some remedial provisions were inadequate.”
United States v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 591 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 , the United States then published notice of the lodging of the consent decree in the Federal Register and solicited public comments on the proposed decree for a period of thirty days.”
United States v. Cannons Eng'g Corp., 720 F. Supp. 1027 (D. Mass. 1989).
· cites it 2× “§ 9622 (i), and United States Department of Justice policy, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 , notice of the two Proposed Consent Decrees was published at 53 Fed.”
MFS, INC. v. Dilazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
· cites it 2× “) On March 23, 2007, over one year after MFS ceased operating its plant, the United States published notice of the proposed Consent Decree in the Federal Register and solicited comments for a period of thirty days pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 . 24 In the Motion for Entry of…”
United States v. Seymour Recycling Corp., 554 F. Supp. 1334 (S.D. Ind. 1982).
· cites it 2× “On October 29,1982, pursuant to its regulations published in 28 C.F.R. 50.7, the United States Department of Justice published notice in the Federal Register, 47 Fed.”
Ronald Fleshman, Jr. v. Volkswagen, Ag, 894 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018).
“Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 (b), notice of the partial consent decree appeared in the Federal Register on July 6, 2016, and 4 In addition to the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), represented by separate counsel, brought claims against VW for violations of the…”
City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 697 F. Supp. 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
“at 399; see 28 C.F.R. § 50.7 . Nothing in CERCLA suggests that identical or even similar public notice obligations are imposed on other categories of plaintiffs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.