Search for: "UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. v. WASHINGTON" Results 61 - 72 of 72
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2010, 1:04 pm by Berin Szoka
  With approximately 80 million broadband connections in the United States, that’s a cool $7.2 billion in new funds available to USF—instantly nearly doubling its size to over $16 billion a year. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am by smtaber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am by Steven M. Taber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
– Michael Aubele, Valley News Dispatch, April 27, 2010 The federal Environmental Protection Agency and Allegheny County Health Department want a federal judge to sign off on an agreement with Allegheny Ludlum Corp. and Harsco Corp. intended to control slag dust at the Ludlum steel mill in Natrona. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm by admin
“The United States brought this case to protect an important body of water, Pyramid Lake,” said Ignacia S. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm by admin
—EPA News Release, December 21, 2009 A southwest Missouri pet supply dealer has agreed to pay a $56,632 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by repackaging, relabeling and selling an insecticide meant for use on cattle and hogs as a flea and tick treatment for dogs. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 5:46 pm by smtaber
—EPA News Release, December 21, 2009 A southwest Missouri pet supply dealer has agreed to pay a $56,632 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by repackaging, relabeling and selling an insecticide meant for use on cattle and hogs as a flea and tick treatment for dogs. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm by admin
This Settlement Agreement proposes to compromise a claim the United States has at this Site for Past Response Costs, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. [read post]