Notes of Decisions
Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 926 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“Because the Order denying the petition for objection is neither a nationally applicable regulation nor determined by the Administrator to have nationwide scope or effect, venue is not proper in this court. Accordingly, we must dismiss the petition for review.”
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P, 727 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2013).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(l). Again, the fact that Congress chose to include this complete-application requirement but did not include the failure to satisfy that requirement as a violation of Title V must be presumed deliberate: In short, Congress’s decision not to authorize…”
Millennium Pipeline Co. v. Basil Seggos, 860 F.3d 696 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“We held that the agency had failed to justify its refusal to act on the application, and, pursuant to section 19(d)(3), we remanded to the agency with instructions to complete the permitting process within a reasonable timeframe.”
Little v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 33 F. Supp. 3d 791 (W.D. Ky. 2014).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(d). LG & E and PPL argue that the Court should thus dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims as deficient.”
Ohio Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. Whitman, 386 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004).
“6 (a)(iii)(B); (2) the OEPA’s failure to issue all initial Title V operating permits within the three-year time period following its final approval by the EPA to administer its Title V program, § 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c); (3) the OEPA’s failure to prepare a lawful “statement of…”
Athletics Inv. Grp., LLC v. Schnitzer Steel Indus., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2025).
· cites it 3× “See BAAQMD Rule 2-6-404 (providing "initial application for a major facility 13 review permit" must be submitted "within 12 months after the facility becomes subject to 14 BAAQMD's permit program"); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c) (providing "[a]ny person 15 required to have a…”
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Paul, 692 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c). That deadline has come and gone, and Tennessee Gas remains unable to break ground on its compressor station.”
Mirant Potomac River, LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 2067082 (Va. Ct. App. June 23, 2009).
“§ 7661a, which requires each source to submit a permit application accompanied by a compliance plan, 42 U.S.C. § 7661b. 5 The permit specifies compliance provided by an emission allocation and transfer system.”
United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 938 F. Supp. 2d 615 (M.D. La. 2011).
“The Court finds the language of 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(l) require the source to, in its permit application, submit a plan to comply with “all applicable requirements under this chapter.”
42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(2): 1 case
42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(l): 2 cases
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P, 727 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2013).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(l). Again, the fact that Congress chose to include this complete-application requirement but did not include the failure to satisfy that requirement as a violation of Title V must be presumed deliberate: In short, Congress’s decision not to authorize…”
United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 938 F. Supp. 2d 615 (M.D. La. 2011).
“The Court finds the language of 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b)(l) require the source to, in its permit application, submit a plan to comply with “all applicable requirements under this chapter.”
42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c): 6 cases
Millennium Pipeline Co. v. Basil Seggos, 860 F.3d 696 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“We held that the agency had failed to justify its refusal to act on the application, and, pursuant to section 19(d)(3), we remanded to the agency with instructions to complete the permitting process within a reasonable timeframe.”
Ohio Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. Whitman, 386 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004).
“6 (a)(iii)(B); (2) the OEPA’s failure to issue all initial Title V operating permits within the three-year time period following its final approval by the EPA to administer its Title V program, § 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c); (3) the OEPA’s failure to prepare a lawful “statement of…”
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Paul, 692 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c). That deadline has come and gone, and Tennessee Gas remains unable to break ground on its compressor station.”
Athletics Inv. Grp., LLC v. Schnitzer Steel Indus., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2025).
“See BAAQMD Rule 2-6-404 (providing "initial application for a major facility 13 review permit" must be submitted "within 12 months after the facility becomes subject to 14 BAAQMD's permit program"); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c) (providing "[a]ny person 15 required to have a…”
42 U.S.C. § 7661b(d): 2 cases
Little v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 33 F. Supp. 3d 791 (W.D. Ky. 2014).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(d). LG & E and PPL argue that the Court should thus dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims as deficient.”
Athletics Inv. Grp., LLC v. Schnitzer Steel Indus., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2025).
“See BAAQMD Rule 2-6-404 (providing "initial application for a major facility 13 review permit" must be submitted "within 12 months after the facility becomes subject to 14 BAAQMD's permit program"); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(c) (providing "[a]ny person 15 required to have a…”
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.