All persons, including applicants, who believe any condition of a draft permit is inappropriate or that the Director's tentative decision to deny an application, terminate a permit, or prepare a draft permit is inappropriate, must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their position by the close of the public comment period (including any public hearing) under § 124.10. Any supporting materials which are submitted shall be included in full and may not be incorporated by reference, unless they are already part of the administrative record in the same proceeding, or consist of State or Federal statutes and regulations, EPA documents of general applicability, or other generally available reference materials. Commenters shall make supporting materials not already included in the administrative record available to EPA as directed by the Regional Administrator. (A comment period longer than 30 days may be necessary to give commenters a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements of this section. Additional time shall be granted under § 124.10 to the extent that a commenter who requests additional time demonstrates the need for such time.)
[49 FR 38051, Sept. 26, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
Housatonic River Initiative v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 75 F.4th 248 (1st Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “at 664, we note that the EPA's regulations do not unambiguously support this finding, see 40 C.F.R. § 124.13 (requiring commenters to "raise all reasonably ascertainable issues .”
Adams v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 38 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 124.13 . During this period, any interested person can request a *48 public hearing.”
City of Taunton v. U.S. Env't Prot., 895 F.3d 120 (1st Cir. 2018).
“See 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.13 , 124.19 (requiring that permit appellants raising new arguments "explain why such issues were not required to be raised during the public comment period").”
Emhart Indus., Inc. v. New England Container Co., 274 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.R.I. 2017).
“3d at 30 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 124.13 ). In light of this statutory requirement, the court found that petitioner had “waived the argument by failing to raise it during the public comment period of the permitting process.”
Mueller v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 993 F.2d 1354 (8th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The petitioners claim that the EPA permit inappropriately incorporates provisions of the Missouri permit and that the Missouri permit is not binding on the facility’s landowner— Atlas Powder Company.”
Ubwpad v. Epa (1st Cir. 2012).
“The EPA responds that the atypical data point was properly included in its analysis of in-stream concentrations of aluminum since the District did not demonstrate that the conditions which led to the high discharge will not reoccur, and that, in any case, the District has waived…”
Adams v. EPA (1st Cir. 1994).
“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 124.13, "all persons . . . who believe any condition of a draft permit is inappropriate or that the Director's tentative decision to .”
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.