40 C.F.R. § 56.3

Policy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

It is EPA's policy to:

(a) Assure fair and uniform application by all Regional Offices of the criteria, procedures, and policies employed in implementing and enforcing the act;

(b) Provide mechanisms for identifying and correcting inconsistencies by standardizing criteria, procedures, and policies being employed by Regional Office employees in implementing and enforcing the act; and

(c) Insure an adequate quality audit for each State's performance in implementing and enforcing the act.

(d) Recognize that only the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court that arise from challenges to “nationally applicable regulations . . . or final action,” as discussed in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)), shall apply uniformly, and to provide for exceptions to the general policy stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with regard to decisions of the federal courts that arise from challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions, as provided in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)).

[45 FR 85405, Dec. 24, 1980, as amended at 81 FR 51113, Aug. 3, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Nat'l Env't Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Proj. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 752 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Nat'l Env't Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Proj. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 752 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “” 40 C.F.R. § 56.3 (a), (b). We need not decide whether the Summit Directive also contravenes the requirements of the CAA.”
Nat'l Env't Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Proj. v. EPA, 891 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge This case involves a challenge by Petitioners National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project, American Petroleum Institute, and Air Permitting Forum ("Petitioners") to Amendments to Regional Consistency Regulations ("Amended…”
Wynnewood Refining Co., L.L.C. v. EPA (5th Cir. 2023). “” 40 C.F.R. § 56.3 (d). A Tenth Circuit decision—no matter its holding—had no effect on petitioners’ operating outside that circuit’s boun- daries.”
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.