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 2
... proposed facility . As explained below , the Petition is dismissed because the issues . for which the Petitioner seeks review were not preserved for appeal , and Peti- tioner has not shown an abuse of discretion by the permitting ...
... proposed facility . As explained below , the Petition is dismissed because the issues . for which the Petitioner seeks review were not preserved for appeal , and Peti- tioner has not shown an abuse of discretion by the permitting ...
Page 10
... proposed the assessment of a total civil penalty of $ 156,064 . Capozzi disputed its liability for all six counts of Region V's Complaint and argued that the proposed penalty was excessive . The ALJ granted Region V's motion for summary ...
... proposed the assessment of a total civil penalty of $ 156,064 . Capozzi disputed its liability for all six counts of Region V's Complaint and argued that the proposed penalty was excessive . The ALJ granted Region V's motion for summary ...
Page 12
... proposed the assessment of a total civil penalty of $ 156,064 . Capozzi disputed its liability for all six counts of Region V's Complaint and argued that the Region's proposed penalty was excessive . The ALJ granted the Region's motion ...
... proposed the assessment of a total civil penalty of $ 156,064 . Capozzi disputed its liability for all six counts of Region V's Complaint and argued that the Region's proposed penalty was excessive . The ALJ granted the Region's motion ...
Page 19
... Proposal and Explanation at 2. On August 10 , 2000 , the Region proposed a civil penalty of $ 283,603 , see Complainant's 40 C.F.R. ยง 22.19 ( a ) ( 4 ) Penalty Proposal and Expla- nation ( Aug. 10 , 2000 ) , which was reduced to ...
... Proposal and Explanation at 2. On August 10 , 2000 , the Region proposed a civil penalty of $ 283,603 , see Complainant's 40 C.F.R. ยง 22.19 ( a ) ( 4 ) Penalty Proposal and Expla- nation ( Aug. 10 , 2000 ) , which was reduced to ...
Page 37
... proposed a civil penalty of $ 6,164 for Count III , which was rejected by the ALJ on the basis that the Region had not offered sufficient evi- dence to support the proposed penalty . The ALJ instead assessed a civil penalty of $ 2,000 ...
... proposed a civil penalty of $ 6,164 for Count III , which was rejected by the ALJ on the basis that the Region had not offered sufficient evi- dence to support the proposed penalty . The ALJ instead assessed a civil penalty of $ 2,000 ...
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