Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 40
... Presiding Officer issued an initial deci- sion finding B & R liable for violating the financial responsibility regulations . However , the Presiding Officer departed from the Penalty Policy by lowering the Region's proposed penalty to ...
... Presiding Officer issued an initial deci- sion finding B & R liable for violating the financial responsibility regulations . However , the Presiding Officer departed from the Penalty Policy by lowering the Region's proposed penalty to ...
Page 41
... Presiding Officer's penalty assessment is upheld because there is no clear error or abuse of discretion on his part . The Presiding Officer did not act “ arbitrarily and capriciously " in only reducing the Region's proposed penalty to ...
... Presiding Officer's penalty assessment is upheld because there is no clear error or abuse of discretion on his part . The Presiding Officer did not act “ arbitrarily and capriciously " in only reducing the Region's proposed penalty to ...
Page 48
... Presiding Officer issued his Initial Decision on September 8 , 1997 , finding B & R liable for the violations alleged in the Amended Complaint , but reducing the penalty to $ 60,000 . See infra section III.D. B & R filed a timely Notice ...
... Presiding Officer issued his Initial Decision on September 8 , 1997 , finding B & R liable for the violations alleged in the Amended Complaint , but reducing the penalty to $ 60,000 . See infra section III.D. B & R filed a timely Notice ...
Page 63
... Presiding Officer's decision to reduce the Region's proposed penalty to only $ 60,000 as in error because " unsupported by the evidence . " Appeal Brief at 29. B & R further chal- lenges the Presiding Officer's decision as arbitrary and ...
... Presiding Officer's decision to reduce the Region's proposed penalty to only $ 60,000 as in error because " unsupported by the evidence . " Appeal Brief at 29. B & R further chal- lenges the Presiding Officer's decision as arbitrary and ...
Page 64
... Presiding Officer nonetheless decided that to arrive at an appropriate penalty , an additional downward adjustment was warranted to account for evidence that B & R faced diffi- culties in obtaining insurance and had made some inquiries ...
... Presiding Officer nonetheless decided that to arrive at an appropriate penalty , an additional downward adjustment was warranted to account for evidence that B & R faced diffi- culties in obtaining insurance and had made some inquiries ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
AAQ Report action Agency air quality air quality analysis alleged amended Appeal Brief AQMD AQMD's ARCO argues argument asbestos BACT determination Board CERCLA chemical civil penalty Clarksburg clear error Cogeneration combined cycle complaint compliance Corp deny review DOH's response draft permit emission limit enforcement Environmental EPA's EPCRA facility FIFRA filed Final Permit hazardous HELCO impact Initial Decision injection issue Knauf major stationary sources mineral oil monitoring NAAQS naphtha Newell NSR Manual operation penalty assessment Penalty Policy permit application permit condition permit decision Petitioners petitions for review pollutants Presiding Officer Presiding Officer's proposed PSD increment PSD permit PSD program public comment period raised reduction regarding Region's Response regulatory remand requirements Response to Comments Rio Mameyes SchoolCraft Self-Disclosure Policy Steeltech tanks tion U.S. EPA USTS violations Waimana WDNR