Natl Lime Assn v. EPA, No. 99-1325 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 15, 2000.
United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 99-1325 September Term, 2000
National Lime Association, Petitioner v.
Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent
Consolidated with 99-1326
On Petitions for Review of An Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge, Ginsburg and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is
ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is hereby denied, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on December 15, 2000 is hereby amended to substitute the paragraph beginning on the bottom of page 12 and continuing at the top of page 13 with the following:
Although we thus believe that section 7412(d)(1)'s language disposes of this issue, we add that our reading of that section is reinforced by the Clean Air Act's legislative history. A report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works states: The technologies, practices or strategies which are to be considered in setting emission standards under this subsection go beyond the traditional end-of-the stack treatment or abatement system. The Administrator is to give priority to technologies or strategies which reduce the amount of pollution generated through process changes or the substitution of materials less hazardous. Pollution prevention is to be the preferred strategy wherever possible. S. REP. NO. 101-228, at 168.
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Filed On: February 14, 2001 [575997]
National Lime Association, Petitioner v.
Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent
Consolidated with 99-1326
On Petitions for Review of An Order of the Environmental Protection Agency
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge, Ginsburg and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is
ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is hereby denied, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on December 15, 2000 is hereby amended to substitute the paragraph beginning on the bottom of page 12 and continuing at the top of page 13 with the following:
Although we thus believe that section 7412(d)(1)'s language disposes of this issue, we add that our reading of that section is reinforced by the Clean Air Act's legislative history. A report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works states: The technologies, practices or strategies which are to be considered in setting emission standards under this subsection go beyond the traditional end-of-the stack treatment or abatement system. The Administrator is to give priority to technologies or strategies which reduce the amount of pollution generated through process changes or the substitution of materials less hazardous. Pollution prevention is to be the preferred strategy wherever possible. S. REP. NO. 101-228, at 168.
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Filed On: February 14, 2001 [575997]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
