Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 889 F.2d at 672. In 1990 the EPA revised the standard for determining whether cleanup costs will be considered “consistent with the NCP.” County Line Inv. Co. v. Tinney, 933 F.2d 1508, 1514-15 (10th Cir.1991). In doing so, it reduced the standard for compliance from “strict” to “substantial compliance.” Id. “A private party response action will be considered ‘consistent with the NCP’ if the action, when evaluated as a whole, is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements ... and results in a CERC-LA-quality cleanup.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c)(3)(i). Viewing the facts favorably to Aviall, this court’s task is to decide whether Aviall has complied with this standard. See, e.g., La.-Pac. Corp. , 89 F.3d 835, 1996 WL 338624, at *5 (6th Cir.1996) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>) and SherwinWilliams Co. v. City of Hamtramck, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that on summary judgment a court may not disregard evidence merely because it serves the interests of the party introducing it citations omitted (B) holding that it may not (C) holding that the act is constitutional because it restricts who may control the images but not what the defendant may introduce at trial (D) holding that it may be decided as a matter of law (E) holding that it is not
Output (English): holding that it is not