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 7
... decision to issue a PSD permit will ordinarily not be reviewed unless the decision is based on either a clearly erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law , or involves an important matter of policy or exer- cise of discretion that ...
... decision to issue a PSD permit will ordinarily not be reviewed unless the decision is based on either a clearly erroneous finding of fact or conclusion of law , or involves an important matter of policy or exer- cise of discretion that ...
Page 25
... decision will ordinarily not be reviewed unless it is based on a clearly erroneous find- ing of fact or conclusion of law , or involves an important matter of poli- cy or exercise of discretion that warrants review . 40 C.F.R. § 124.19 ...
... decision will ordinarily not be reviewed unless it is based on a clearly erroneous find- ing of fact or conclusion of law , or involves an important matter of poli- cy or exercise of discretion that warrants review . 40 C.F.R. § 124.19 ...
Page 26
... decision , plus three days for service by mail ( 40 C.F.R. § 124.20 ( d ) ) . Because notice of the final permit decision was served on March 20 , 1998 , the appeals period would have ordinarily expired on April 22 , 1998. However , in ...
... decision , plus three days for service by mail ( 40 C.F.R. § 124.20 ( d ) ) . Because notice of the final permit decision was served on March 20 , 1998 , the appeals period would have ordinarily expired on April 22 , 1998. However , in ...
Page 48
... Decision . As noted before , B & R contests the Initial Decision on the following grounds : ( 1 ) The Presiding Officer erred in finding B & R liable for violating the financial responsibility regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 280 , subpart ...
... Decision . As noted before , B & R contests the Initial Decision on the following grounds : ( 1 ) The Presiding Officer erred in finding B & R liable for violating the financial responsibility regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 280 , subpart ...
Page 62
... decision , the Presiding Officer lowered the Region's assessed penalty from $ 76,601 to $ 60,000 , providing the following suc- cinct explanation : The bulk of this [ $ 60,000 ] penalty assessment is due to respondent's insistence on ...
... decision , the Presiding Officer lowered the Region's assessed penalty from $ 76,601 to $ 60,000 , providing the following suc- cinct explanation : The bulk of this [ $ 60,000 ] penalty assessment is due to respondent's insistence on ...
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