Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 10
... ALJ found Capozzi liable for Counts I , II , and III . On the issue of the penalty , the ALJ rejected the Region's proposed penalty and instead assessed a total penalty for all six counts of $ 37,600 , reflecting the ALJ's consideration ...
... ALJ found Capozzi liable for Counts I , II , and III . On the issue of the penalty , the ALJ rejected the Region's proposed penalty and instead assessed a total penalty for all six counts of $ 37,600 , reflecting the ALJ's consideration ...
Page 11
... ALJ failed to apply the RCRA Penalty Policy principle regarding multiple violations springing from the same transgression ; and ( 5 ) the ALJ erred in issuing a com- pliance order . Held : ( 1 ) The Board affirms the ALJ's ruling that ...
... ALJ failed to apply the RCRA Penalty Policy principle regarding multiple violations springing from the same transgression ; and ( 5 ) the ALJ erred in issuing a com- pliance order . Held : ( 1 ) The Board affirms the ALJ's ruling that ...
Page 12
... ALJ's decision not to engage in a detailed discussion of the RCRA Penalty Policy renders his decision arbitrary and capri- cious . While the ALJ's rationale for reducing the penalty is brief , it is sufficiently reasoned and supported ...
... ALJ's decision not to engage in a detailed discussion of the RCRA Penalty Policy renders his decision arbitrary and capri- cious . While the ALJ's rationale for reducing the penalty is brief , it is sufficiently reasoned and supported ...
Page 20
... ALJ's decision on this point was erroneous . 17 See Complainant's Motion for Accelerated Decision on Liability ( Oct. 16 , 2000 ) . 18 Specifically , the ALJ assessed a civil penalty of $ 5,000 for Count I , $ 30,000 for Count II ...
... ALJ's decision on this point was erroneous . 17 See Complainant's Motion for Accelerated Decision on Liability ( Oct. 16 , 2000 ) . 18 Specifically , the ALJ assessed a civil penalty of $ 5,000 for Count I , $ 30,000 for Count II ...
Page 21
... ALJ erred by rejecting the Region's economic benefit analysis for Count I ; and ( 3 ) the ALJ's alleged failure either to apply EPA's RCRA Civil Penalty Policy of October 1990 ( the " Penalty Policy " ) , or to ade- quately explain his ...
... ALJ erred by rejecting the Region's economic benefit analysis for Count I ; and ( 3 ) the ALJ's alleged failure either to apply EPA's RCRA Civil Penalty Policy of October 1990 ( the " Penalty Policy " ) , or to ade- quately explain his ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
9th Cir administrative Agency Agency's Alaska Garrison ALJ's alleged amended analysis antidegradation appeal Appellee application arctic grayling argues argument Asbestos authority BACT Board Brief Capozzi Carlota citing civil penalty Clean Water Act Complaint compliance concluded Corp Court CWPI D.C. Cir determination discharges draft permit economic benefit emissions unit enforcement Environmental EPA's EPCRA evidence evidentiary hearing failed FIFRA filed Friedman & Schmitt Gibson Hasbro hazardous waste Init Initial Decision issue limit ment mg/l Microban Motion NEPA NPDES permit penalty assessment penalty factors Penalty Policy permit conditions pesticide Petition Petitioners Phoenix Pinto Creek pollutant Presiding Officer prior proposed public comment period RACM RCRA record Region Region IV Region's SEA regulations regulatory remand request requirements Respondent's Response rule specific statutory Supp Teck Cominco tion TMDL U.S. EPA USGen violations Washington Aqueduct water quality standards WECCO wetlands