Notes of Decisions
The Sierra Club v. Stephen L. Johnson, 436 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) (emphasis added). The statute does not define “results,” which leads to the question: what does “submit .”
Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “" 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). Rather than imposing an additional set of requirements on pollution sources, this permitting scheme was intended to "incorporate the requirements of the Act (including SIP requirements) that are[already] applicable to the source.”
United States Sugar Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“The EPA also concluded that thirty-day rolling average violations will occur almost as frequently as violations of shorter rolling-average periods. Id. The CAA vests the EPA with authority to “prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for monitoring and…”
Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., 615 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “It contends first that EPA took no action with respect to the 2001 modifications that could have been subject to judicial review, and thus § 7607(b)(2) does not apply. Second, it argues that the district court’s dismissal of the NSPS claim nullified the CAA’s “permit shield”…”
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. Env't Prot. Agency, 734 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Under 42 U.S.C. § 7661c, EPA “may by rule prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative methods are available that…”
White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. Env't Prot. Agency, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “e assurance of compliance with a standard set as a thirty-day emissions rate, given EPA’s determination that stack test results are highly variable, and that EPA has failed to explain how compliance options involving long intervals between performance tests and lacking any…”
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P, 727 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). But just because the statute requires complete permits does not mean that incomplete permits are actionable in an enforcement action.”
Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). To that end, each permit must include a “schedule of compliance,” id, and if a source is out of compliance when the permit is issued, the permit must also include “a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions .”
Appalachian Power Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
“6(a)(3) as 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(b). This provides that EPA "may by rule” set forth methods and procedures "for monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this chapter, but continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative methods are available that…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) — 29 cases
The Sierra Club v. Stephen L. Johnson, 436 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006).
“42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) (emphasis added). The statute does not define “results,” which leads to the question: what does “submit .”
Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008).
“" 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). Rather than imposing an additional set of requirements on pollution sources, this permitting scheme was intended to "incorporate the requirements of the Act (including SIP requirements) that are[already] applicable to the source.”
Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). To that end, each permit must include a “schedule of compliance,” id, and if a source is out of compliance when the permit is issued, the permit must also include “a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions .”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(b) — 7 cases
United States Sugar Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“The EPA also concluded that thirty-day rolling average violations will occur almost as frequently as violations of shorter rolling-average periods. Id. The CAA vests the EPA with authority to “prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for monitoring and…”
White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. Env't Prot. Agency, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
“e assurance of compliance with a standard set as a thirty-day emissions rate, given EPA’s determination that stack test results are highly variable, and that EPA has failed to explain how compliance options involving long intervals between performance tests and lacking any…”
Appalachian Power Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
“6(a)(3) as 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(b). This provides that EPA "may by rule” set forth methods and procedures "for monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this chapter, but continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative methods are available that…”
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. Env't Prot. Agency, 734 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
“Under 42 U.S.C. § 7661c, EPA “may by rule prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative methods are available that…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c) — 4 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(d) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(e) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(f) — 9 cases
Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., 615 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2010).
“It contends first that EPA took no action with respect to the 2001 modifications that could have been subject to judicial review, and thus § 7607(b)(2) does not apply. Second, it argues that the district court’s dismissal of the NSPS claim nullified the CAA’s “permit shield”…”
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P, 727 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a). But just because the statute requires complete permits does not mean that incomplete permits are actionable in an enforcement action.”
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.