33 U.S.C. § 1412
REGULATIONS.
“The Secretary and the Administrator each may prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1974–2020 · leading case: Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U.S. 1 (1981).
Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U.S. 1 (1981). “[19] These permits are issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 33 U. S. C. § 1412 , except in the case of dredged materials, which may be dumped under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Army, § 1413.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Douglas M. Costle, in His Off. Capacity as Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency (Ocean Dumping), 629 F.2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Permit-granting authority was divided between the Administrator and the Corps “in order not to separate the responsibility for the issuance [by the Corps] of the dredging permit and the permit for disposing of the results of such dredging.”
Manatee Cnty. v. Gorsuch, 554 F. Supp. 778 (M.D. Fla. 1982). “33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a). In evaluating disposal projects, the Corps and the EPA are required to consider the following factors: 2 A.”
Pac. Legal Found. v. Quarles, 440 F. Supp. 316 (C.D. Cal. 1977). “33 U.S.C. § 1412 . INTERIM SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROJECT AND RELIEF SOUGHT Pending an ultimate solution to the problem of sludge disposal, an interim sludge project was designed for Hyperion requiring that sludge be centrifugally de-watered and then transported to a sanitary landfill.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Benn, 491 F. Supp. 1234 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “” 33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a). The Administrator is directed to establish and apply “criteria” for reviewing permit applications and the statute delineates numerous considerations that should be reflected in these criteria.”
Save Our Sound Fisheries Ass'n v. Callaway, 387 F. Supp. 292 (D.R.I. 1974). “§ 1413 (a), and must apply the Ocean Dumping Criteria established pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a), relating to the effects of dumping.”
City of New York v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 543 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(A). In addition, in formulating its criteria, EPA must consider “[appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including land-based alternatives .”
United States v. Rohm & Haas Co. & Rohm & Haas of Texas, Inc., 500 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1974). “The following factors are to be considered: the need for the proposed dumping; its effect on human health and welfare, including economic, esthetic, and recreational values; its effect on *177 fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines, and beaches;…”
Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir. 1988). “§§ 1413 (a) and (b), requires the Corps to determine appropriate locations for dumping in accordance with the criteria set forth in 33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a), including the effect of dumping “particular volumes and concentrations” of material, and the “persistence and permanence” of…”
State of Md. v. Train, 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Maryland 1976). “The Act provides that the Administrator of EPA (Administrator) may issue dumping permits and, acting pursuant to Section 102 of the Ocean Dumping Act ( 33 U.S.C. § 1412 ), the Administrator published Interim Ocean Dumping Regulations on April 5, 1973 (38 Fed.”
106 Mile Transp. Assocs. v. Koch, 656 F. Supp. 1474 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “§ 1333 , the Marine Protection Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1412 and Presidential Proclamation No.”
Kilroy v. Ruckelshaus, 738 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1984). “, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1412 et seq., (1976 & Supp. V 1981), the NPDES permit, and the consent decree.”
— 33 U.S.C. § 1412(a) — 1 case
Save Our Sound Fisheries Ass'n v. Callaway, 387 F. Supp. 292 (D.R.I. 1974). “§ 1413 (a), and must apply the Ocean Dumping Criteria established pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1412 (a), relating to the effects of dumping.”
— 33 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(B) — 1 case
Seaburn Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 712 F. Supp. 218 (D.D.C. 1989).
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.