U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 82— SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

42 U.S.C. § 6976

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Review of final regulations and certain petitionsAny judicial review of final regulations promulgated pursuant to this chapter and the Administrator’s denial of any petition for the promulgation, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this chapter shall be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title 5, except that—(1) a petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating any regulation, or requirement under this chapter or denying any petition for the promulgation, amendment or repeal of any regulation under this chapter may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and such petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of such promulgation or denial, or after such date if such petition for review is based solely on grounds arising after such ninetieth day; action of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement; and(2) in any judicial proceeding brought under this section in which review is sought of a determination under this chapter required to be made on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, if a party seeking review under this chapter applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that the information is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Administrator, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper; the Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original order, with the return of such additional evidence.(b) Review of certain actions under sections 6925 and 6926 of this title

Review of the Administrator’s action (1) in issuing, denying, modifying, or revoking any permit under section 6925 of this title (or in modifying or revoking any permit which is deemed to have been issued under section 6935(d)(1) 11 See References in Text note below. of this title), or (2) in granting, denying, or withdrawing authorization or interim authorization under section 6926 of this title, may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in which such person resides or transacts such business upon application by such person. Any such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of such issuance, denial, modification, revocation, grant, or withdrawal, or after such date only if such application is based solely on grounds which arose after such ninetieth day. Action of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. Such review shall be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, § 7006, as added Pub. L. 94–580, § 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2827; amended Pub. L. 96–482, § 27, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2349; Pub. L. 98–616, title II, § 241(b)(1), title IV, § 403(d)(5), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3259, 3273.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 6935(d)(1) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original a reference to section 3012(d)(1) of Pub. L. 89–272, which was renumbered section 3014(d)(1) of Pub. L. 89–272 by Pub. L. 98–616 and is classified to section 6935(d)(1) of this title.

Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–616 inserted “(or in modifying or revoking any permit which is deemed to have been issued under section 6935(d)(1) of this title)” and inserted “Action of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.”

1980—Pub. L. 96–482, § 27(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), in provision preceding par. (1), included judicial review of Administrator’s denial of any petition for promulgation, amendment, or repeal of any regulation in par. (1), included review of Administrator’s denial of any petition for promulgation, amendment, or repeal of any regulation, and substituted “District of Columbia, and” for “District of Columbia. Any”, “date of such promulgation or denial” for “date of such promulgation”, “petition for review is based” for “petition is based”, and “; action” for “. Action”, and in par. (2), substituted “proper; the” for “proper. The”, and added subsec. (b).

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of Administrator or other official of Environmental Protection Agency under this chapter to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, and subsequent transfer to Secretary of Energy, then to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, see note set out under section 6903 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “While rejecting the attack on the applicability of Subtitle C to purge solvent piping systems, EPA repeats in its brief that, as a threshold matter, the court lacks jurisdiction because the Shimberg letters are not regulations reviewable under RCRA § 7006(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6976…”
Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 862 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 12× “42 U.S.C. § 6976 (a)(1). Tellingly, the comment and EPA’s response are interpreting provisions in 40 C.”
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. Env't Prot. Agency, 493 F.3d 207 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “The Coalition now petitions for review pursuant to RCRA § 7006(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (a)(1), which gives this court exclusive jurisdiction over “petition[s] for review of action of the [EPA] in promulgating any regulation, or requirement under [RCRA].”
United States v. S. Union Co., 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “We conclude that: (1) Southern Union is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (b) from challenging the EPA’s 2002 Immediate Final Rule authorizing Rhode Island’s RCRA regulations.”
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 145 F.3d 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “We dismiss the petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction because the preamble statements are not final regulations within the meaning of RCRA § 7006(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (a) (1994). Moreover, even assuming that the court otherwise had jurisdiction, it is clear that Florida…”
W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 959 F.2d 360 (1st Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “RCRA § 7006(b), 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (b); see also note 7 supra.”
Housatonic River Initiative v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 75 F.4th 248 (1st Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “This unusual remedial structure afforded GE and other interested persons the immediate rights of review associated with a RCRA permit, see 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (b), while subjecting the selected response action to the cleanup requirements of CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan.”
Vineland Chem. Co., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 810 F.2d 402 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 6976 (b) (Supp. II 1984). While we find that interim status is not a permit in RCRA’s statutory scheme, we hold that § 6976(b), when read in conjunction with the statutory history and the case law favoring court of appeals jurisdic *404 tion over petitions for review…”
Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 901 F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “42 U.S.C. § 6976 (a)(1) (petition for review "shall be filed within ninety days from the date of * * * promulgation").”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Johnson, 540 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “But the available window of time to raise such challenges has now manifestly expired.”
Shell Oil Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6976 (1976) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 ).”
Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). “§ 1276 (a) (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977) (same); 42 U. S. C. §6976 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (same); § 7607(b) (Clean Air Act) (same); 43 U.”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 6976(a) — 1 case
United States v. Allegan Metal Finishing Co., 696 F. Supp. 275 (W.D. Mich. 1988).
— 42 U.S.C. § 6976(a)(1) — 1 case
Env't Def. Fund v. Env't Prot. Agency, 210 F.3d 396 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
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.