For many years, RWCS has been a leader in providing legal services for a wide range of matters and issues arising under the federal and state Clean Air Act laws, regulations, and programs.  RWCS's air practice group is headed by Don Shandy, who has earned a national reputation handling high-visibility cases in this very technical and complex field for almost 20 years.  Mike Peters, formerly an attorney with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, has nearly 15 years handling regulatory, permitting, and enforcement matters relating to all types of air issues.  Mark Coldiron, Keith Klein, and Ricky Pearce all have substantial air experience as well, including defending citizen suits and toxic tort litigation alleging air pollution.  RWCS has successfully handled numerous high-profile, complex air problems for Fortune 500 companies and smaller companies in various states around the country, including Oklahoma, Texas (Dallas, Houston), Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Colorado, Alabama, South Carolina, and Montana.  If you are looking for assistance with an air issue in any state or region, contact Don or Mike. 

 

In representing manufacturing facilities and other industry clients, RWCS has helped prepare many detailed responses to EPA Clean Air Act Section 114 information requests.  Section 114 information requests may indicate that industry-wide or company-specific enforcement action is under consideration, and typically require careful analysis, meticulous historical research, thorough documentation, and well-considered individual answers (with appropriate objections).  RWCS is very experienced in assisting companies with developing the best possible response to a CAA Section 114 information request. 

EPA's authority to gather information under the CAA, as well as other statutes, is extremely broad:

The validity of an administrative request for information generally turns on the reasonableness of the request. See United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652-53, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) (quotation marks omitted) ("The gist of the protection is ... that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable."). Although "a governmental investigation... may be of such a sweeping nature and so unrelated to the matter properly under inquiry as to exceed the investigatory power," id. at 652, 70 S.Ct. 357, "it is sufficient if the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant." Id. An EPA information request, therefore, "will be enforced where: (1) the investigation is within EPA's authority; (2) the request is not too indefinite; and (3) the information requested is relevant to legislative purposes." United States v. Pretty Products, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1488, 1506 (S.D.Ohio 1991).

U.S. v. Gurley, 384 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2004) (CERCLA case but principles are applicable to CAA as well).  Despite this broad authority, a number of techniques can be used to shape a correct and appropriate response to individual questions, including discussion or negotiation with the cognizant EPA attorney to narrow or better define a particular request, objections or objections with answers notwithstanding, or answers that state how the company interprets a particular request so that the individual response is being made to a well-defined question.  RWCS knows how to deal with EPA and craft a response that provides all legitimately requested information while protecting the company from unforeseen pitfalls or misinterpretation.