(a) The citizen plaintiff in a citizen enforcement suit filed against an alleged violator under section 505(a)(1) of the Act shall serve a copy of a proposed consent judgment, signed by all parties to the lawsuit, upon the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, and the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Citizen Suit Coordinator, Room 2615, Washington, DC 20530. The plaintiff shall serve the Administrator and the Attorney General by personal service or by certified mail (return receipt requested.) The plaintiff shall also mail a copy of a proposed consent judgment at the same time to the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region in which the violations were alleged to have occurred.
(b) When the parties in an action in which the United States is not a party file or lodge a proposed consent judgment with the court, the plaintiff shall notify the court of the statutory requirement that the consent judgment shall not be entered prior to 45 days following receipt by both the Administrator and the Attorney General of a copy of the consent judgment.
(1) If the plaintiff knows the dates upon which the Administrator and the Attorney General received copies of the proposed consent judgment, the plaintiff shall so notify the court.
(2) If the plaintiff does not know the date upon which the Administrator and Attorney General received copies of the proposed consent judgment, the plaintiff shall so notify the court, but upon receiving such information regarding the dates of service of the proposed consent judgment upon the Administrator and Attorney General, the plaintiff shall so notify the court of the dates of service.
[56 FR 11515, Mar. 19, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Levin Enter., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 (a). Ideally, a plaintiff will identify a precise date, but if not, the range of the dates should be “reasonably limited.”
Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Hughes Bros. Aircrafters, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff shall submit this AGREEMENT to the United States 18 Department of Justice and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the 19 “Federal Agencies”), within five (5) business days of the Effective Date (defined at 20 paragraph 11) for agency review consistent…”
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Air Prods. & Chemicals Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§ 1365 (c)(3) and 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 (see Dkt. No. 21); 8 WHEREAS on October 14, 2020, the Court issued a Standby Order of Dismissal vacating all 9 | pre-trial and trial dates and requiring a stipulation of dismissal by January 21, 2021 (see Dkt.”
Env't Def. Ctr. v. City of Lompoc (C.D. Cal. 2022).
“Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and EPA 5 6 for agency review consistent with 40 C.F.R. §135.5 . The agency review period 7 expires forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt by the DOJ, evidenced by 8 correspondence from DOJ establishing the review period.”
San Diego Coastkeeper v. Baker Iron Works Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
“Subsequently, on February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and 20 Commencement of 45-Day Review, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 . ECF No. 12. Plaintiffs 21 also provided the proposed Consent Decree for the Court’s consideration upon the 22 expiration of the…”
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.