Cluster 509500

See EDF II, 852 F.2d at 1329 (“Congress intended the term ‘processing’ in the Bevill Amendment to include only ... ‘high volume, low hazard’ wastes.”).

Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1331 (D.C.

Id. at 1329-30. ‘ Later, however, the EPA withdrew the rule as to those six sites because it needed more time to determine how to address other, “borderline cases” — even though there was no dispute that the six sites were not borderline cases and were clearly subject to the statute.

Reg. 76,618 (1980) (suspending operation of May 19, 1980 subtitle C regulations due to October 21,1980 enactment of RCRA amendments); EDF, 852 F.2d at 1327-28 (explaining the legislative history and the regulatory context of the Bevill amendment); John R.

Such wastes, more precisely defined, are “[sjolid waste from the extraction of ores and minerals consisting of very large volumes of overburden and waste rock excavated during mining [and] [s]olid waste from the benefi-ciation of ores and minerals including large volumes of crushed rock tailings.” Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, 852 F.2d 1316, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom., American Mining Cong. v. Environmental Defense Fund, 489 U…

Granting those petitioners' requests, the court ordered the agency to "relist the six hazardous smelter wastes by August 31, 1988." See 852 F.2d at 1331.

Granting those petitioners’ requests, the court ordered the agency to “relist the six hazardous smelter wastes by August 31, 1988.” See 852 F.2d at 1331.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, 852 F.2d 1316, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1988); Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 824 F.2d 1146 , 1150 (D.C.Cir.1987) (en banc); Montana v. Clark, 749 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C.Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 919 , 106 S.Ct. 246 , 88 L.Ed.2d 255 (1985). 8 . 650 F.2d 1235 , 1257-59 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 2315 , 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); see also Califo…

See Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1324-25, 1326 (D.C.Cir.1988) (overturning agency's decision to withdraw proposed revision of regulation), cert. denied sub nom.

See Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1324-25, 1326 (D.C.Cir.1988) (overturning agency’s decision to withdraw proposed revision of regulation), cert. denied sub nom.

See also Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1331 (D.C.Cir.1988) (establishing a schedule for EPA to fulfill statutory obligations); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Ruckelshaus, 14 Envtl.

See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1327 (D.C.Cir.1988) (holding that to ascertain congressional intent, a court should look first to language and structure, then to secondary indicia such as legislative history).

See 42 U.S.C. § 7409 (a) (imposing even stricter deadlines for initial standards); see also Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1331 (D.C.Cir.1988) (imposing on EPA a schedule for fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011 , 109 S.Ct. 1120 , 103 L.Ed.2d 183 (1989); Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 , 470 (D.C.Cir.1983) (requiring EPA to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act withi…

Sec. 7409 (a) (imposing even stricter deadlines for initial standards); see also Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 , 1331 (D.C.Cir.1988) (imposing on EPA a schedule for fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1120 , 103 L.Ed.2d 183 (1989); Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 , 470 (D.C.Cir.1983) (requiring EPA to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act within six months…