Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01433/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01433-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Slinger Drainage, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed April 13, 2001

No. 99-1433

Slinger Drainage, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

---------

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge; Williams, Ginsburg,

Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel and Garland,

Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of petitioner's petition for rehearing en

banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the

court for a vote, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

A statement of Circuit Judge Williams dissenting from the

denial of rehearing en banc is attached.

A separate Memorandum Opinion supporting the denial of

rehearing is attached to the order denying the petition for

panel rehearing.

Williams, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I am not persuaded

by the court's view that Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure cannot be reconciled with 33 U.S.C.

s 1319(g)(8). Rule 26(a) sets up a general rule on how to

apply a provision that sets forth a "period" (i.e., time limit):

Don't count the day "that begins the period." Then the

substantive statute identifies a "period," 30 days, that "begins" on the date the civil penalty order is issued. One can

put the two together by saying that the substantive statute

identifies the "day that begins the period" as the issuance

date; Rule 26(a) tells us to exclude that day. See also

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 802 F.2d 47, 48 (2d

Cir. 1986) ("The statute [5 U.S.C. s 7123(a)] declares that the

60-day period begins on the date the order is issued, but does

USCA Case #99-1433 Document #589619 Filed: 04/13/2001 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

not direct that the date of issuance be counted as part of that

period.").

USCA Case #99-1433 Document #589619 Filed: 04/13/2001 Page 2 of 2