Failure to comply with any provisions of this part, or with any approved regulatory provision of a State implementation plan, or with any permit condition or permit denial issued pursuant to approved or promulgated regulations for the review of new or modified stationary or indirect sources, or with any permit limitation or condition contained within an operating permit issued under an EPA-approved program that is incorporated into the State implementation plan, shall render the person or governmental entity so failing to comply in violation of a requirement of an applicable implementation plan and subject to enforcement action under section 113 of the Clean Air Act. With regard to compliance schedules, a person or Governmental entity will be considered to have failed to comply with the requirements of this part if it fails to timely submit any required compliance schedule, if the compliance schedule when submitted does not contain each of the elements it is required to contain, or if the person or Governmental entity fails to comply with such schedule.
[39 FR 33512, Sept. 18, 1974, as amended at 54 FR 27285, June 28, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Env't Prot. Agency v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1977).
· cites it 2× “The critical fact about all of the foregoing obligations was that they were imposed on the States, under 40 CFR § 52.23 (1976), as elements of an applicable implementation plan.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Env't Prot. Agency, 500 F.2d 246 (3rd Cir. 1974).
· cites it 5× “§ 1857c-8, may be constitutionally applied to the Commonwealth if it fails to enforce the air bleed retrofit program, or any other provision of the implementation plan promulgated for Pennsylvania, 40 C.F.R. § 52.23 , 38 Fed. Reg. 30633 (November 6,1973).”
Brown v. Env't Prot. Agency, 521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1975).
· cites it 2× “It is clear that the Administrator’s regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 52.23 , so provides. 31 The statutory authority for this regulation is by no means apparent.”
Brown v. Env't Prot. Agency, 566 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The only exception to our limiting this decision to the revised inspection and maintenance regulations is that our disposition necessarily conflicts with the general language of 40 C.F.R. § 52.23 (violations and enforcement) to the extent that regulation authorizes the…”
Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 422 F. Supp. 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
· cites it 2× “There has been no discussion by the parties of 40 C.F.R. § 52.23 which purports to describe the Administrator’s enforcement powers.”
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
“§ 7413 (a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 52.23 . The Facilities’ ATCs The District granted ATCs for Chowchilla on April 19, 2007, while Merced, which had been granted ATCs in October 2005, was issued revised ATCs on February 5, 2007.”
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.