U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 85— AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES › Part Part C— Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality › Subpart subpart i— clean air

42 U.S.C. § 7477

Enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Administrator shall, and a State may, take such measures, including issuance of an order, or seeking injunctive relief, as necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major emitting facility which does not conform to the requirements of this part, or which is proposed to be constructed in any area designated pursuant to section 7407(d) of this title as attainment or unclassifiable and which is not subject to an implementation plan which meets the requirements of this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Alaska Dep't of Env't Conservation v. Env't Prot. Agency, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alaska Dep't of Env't Conservation v. Env't Prot. Agency, 540 U.S. 461 (2004). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 7477 . In the case before us, "the permitting authority" under § 7479(3) is the State of Alaska, acting through Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 260 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “(second alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7477 ). 8 The Sierra Club court concluded that the “shall [take action] as necessary” formulation left too much discretion to the agency to allow for judicial enforcement, because ’“[t]here is no guidance to [the EPA] or to a…”
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P, 727 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 7477 (emphasis added). The Act authorizes citizen suits “against' any person who proposes to construct or constructs ” (or, by definition, proposes “to modify or modifies”) a facility without a required PSD permit or violates any condition of a PSD permit.”
Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Whitman, 336 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Criminal liability can also be predicated upon a violation of an ACO issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7477 . Finally, the EPA can administratively assess civil penalties based upon the violation of any “order” issued by the EPA.”
Texas v. Env't Prot. Agency, 726 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” CAA § 167, 42 U.S.C. § 7477 . A “major emitting facility” is a stationary source that emits, or has the potential to emit, either 100 tons or 250 tons per year of “any air pollutant.”
Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7477 . Thus, she contends, even if § 7477 does create a manda *853 tory duty, that section is no longer applicable.”
United States v. Xcel Energy, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Minnesota 2010). · cites it 3× “” 42 U.S.C. § 7477 . To assist in enforcement, the CAA authorizes EPA to demand such information as it “may reasonably require” to “determin[e] whether any person is in violation of any such standard or any requirement of such a plan, or [to] carry[] out any provision of this…”
Sierra Club v. Jackson, 724 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “§ 7475(a)(1), which the CAA defines as a stationary source with “the potential to emit two hundred and fifty tons per year or more of any air pollutant.” Id. § 7479(1).”
Citizens to Save Spencer Cnty. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 600 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C.A. § 7477 (1978) (emphasis added).”
Solar Turbines Inc. v. Seif, 879 F.2d 1073 (3rd Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “Among the various enforcement mechanisms which the EPA is given by the Act is that contained in section 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7477 , which states that “[t]he [EPA] shall, and a State may, take such measures, including issuance of an order, or seeking injunctive relief, as…”
USA v. Luminant Generation Co.,L.L.C., et a, 905 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “Jurisdiction The district court also dismissed the injunctive-relief claims on jurisdictional grounds under Rule 12(b)(1). The district court "assume[d]" that its "jurisdiction over Clean Air Act claims does not extend to injunctive relief" because "Congress did not provide for…”
New York v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 650 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). “§ 7604 (a)(3) authorizes the State's claims for failure to obtain a preconstruction permit, this Court declines to address the applicability of the additional enforcement provisions at 42 U.S.C. § 7477 , an issue that the State has not fully briefed.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.