NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL., RESPONDENTS

4th Cir. | 1981-02-11
Nos. 76-1914, et al.
With the concurrences of HAYNSWORTH and DONALD RUSSELL, JJ.
643 F.2d 163 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1981)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court modified its prior judgment to no longer remand the variance clauses (40 C.F.R. §§ 436.22 and 436.32) to the Agency for reconsideration.


Facts & Procedural History

The court had previously remanded specific regulations, including variance clauses, to the EPA. The EPA sought certiorari regarding the remand of the …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to our opinion in this case at 601 F. 2d 111 (4th Cir. 1979), we remanded to the Agency for reconsideration 40 C.F.R. §§ 436.22 and 436.32, which were the variance clauses in the Crushed Stone and Construction Sand and Gravel subcategories of the Mineral Mining and Processing point source category, 40 C.F.R. Part 436, as well as three other regulations in each subcategory dealing with various TSS limits and no discharge provisions, as set forth with particularity in our said opinion at page 125 thereof.

To this order EPA sought certiorari as to our holding as to §§ 436.22 and 436.32, the variance clauses. Our holding with respect to the other regulations we remanded was not before the Court. E. P. A. v. National Crushed Stone Association, infra, n. 4.

In its opinion and mandate in E. P. A. v. National Crushed Stone Association, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 295, 66 L.Ed.2d 268 (1980), the Supreme Court reversed our decision with respect to the variance clauses and remanded the case to us for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion.

In obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Court, it is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that our judgment in this case shall be, and the same hereby is, modified, so that 40 C.F.R. § 436.22 and 40 C.F.R. § 436.32 shall not be remanded to the Agency as we had previously ordered. The remainder of our decision remains unchanged.

With the concurrences of HAYNSWORTH and DONALD RUSSELL, JJ.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw