Business Focus B2C B2B Total A survey of B2B marketers (marketers that focus primarily on attracting businesses) and B2C marketers (marketers that primarily target consumers) was based on 1000 B2B….
What are some of the governing statues that would authorize the EPA’s powers in the case at hand, and may have subsequently caused the appellate court to affirm the decision of the EAB?
A petitioner, Service Oil, Inc., which owned a construction site, did not obtain a storm water discharge permit. As such, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed a monetary penalty, not based on unlawful discharges, but based on the company’s failure to comply with the agency’s permit application regulations. In court, the petitioner sought review of this order imposed by the EPA. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Service Oil, Inc., did in fact engage in the violations asserted by the EPA. Service Oil, Inc., appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB). The EAP then affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Service Oil, Inc., then petitioned for review of the EAB’s decision. On appeal, the court found that the penalty imposed by the EPA was an expansion of the agency’s power that was not authorized by the governing statutes. The appellate court reversed the decision of the EAB, and remanded for redetermination of the penalty. What are some of the governing statues that would authorize the EPA’s powers in the case at hand, and may have subsequently caused the appellate court to affirm the decision of the EAB?