U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1). The Act defines an "emission standard or limitation" as:
(3) ... any condition or requirement under an applicable implementation plan relating to transportation control measures, air quality maintenance plans, vehicle inspection and maintenance programs or vapor recovery requirements ... or under an applicable implementation plan.
42 U.S.C. § 7604(f)(3).
[7] Not surprisingly, the same congressional committees and leaders were instrumental in drafting both statutes. See W.H. Rodgers, Environmental Law: Air and Water 6-7 (1986). See also, Train, 510 F.2d at 699, n. 34 citing, S.Rep.No.414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 79 (1971), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1972, p. 3745, reprinted in Environmental Policy Division of the Congressional Reference Service, a Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Vol. II at 1497 (Senate Public Works Comm. Print 1973); see H.R.Rep. No.911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 133 (1972), reprinted in Legislative History, supra, Vol. I at 820. Compare 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (Supp. II 1972) with 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-2 (1970).
[8] RCRA provides that "No action may commenced ... prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the violation...." 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(1).
[9] Whether defective notice is jurisdictional or merely procedural has received mixed treatment. In Hallstrom, supra, the Supreme Court dismissed a citizen suit based on deficient notice but it stated that "we need not determine whether [the notice provision] is jurisdictional in the strict sense of the word." Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 31, 110 S.Ct. at 311. Some subsequent decisions have interpreted the provision as jurisdictional. Bettis v. Town of Ontario, 800 F.Supp. 1113, 1115 (W.D.N.Y.1992). Other decisions have held that the requirement is "a mandatory condition precedent to the filing of a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act." National Environmental, supra, 926 F.2d at 1097. Because we conclude that the City's notice was adequate, we do not attempt to resolve this issue.
[10] The letter cites the following paragraphs: D.2, D.2.a, D.2.b, D.2.b(1) D.2.b(2), D.2.c, D.2.c(1), D.2.c(2) D.3. and in Appendix F, ¶¶ I.A.6; II. A.2, II.B.1, III.A.1, III.A.2, III.A.3, III.A.4, III.A.5, III.A.6, III.B.1, III.B.2, III.B.3, IV.A.2, IV.A.3, IV.B.1, IV.B.2, IV.B.3, V.A, V.B
[11] The letter cites the following paragraphs: A, B, B1, B.2.a, B.2.b.C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6 D, E.1, E.4d, E.4f, E.4g, E.6a, E.7.a, E.7.c E.8. ¶ IIID.2.a.
[12] Appendix D, ¶¶ II., 2d.(1), 2d.(2), 3.A., 3.B., 3.C., 3.C.(2), 3.C.(4), 4.A.(1), 4.A.(2)a., 4.A.(2)c, 4.A.(2)d, 4.A.(2).e, 4.A.(2).f, A.(2).g, 4.A.(2).h, 4.A.(2).i, 4.A.(2).j, 4.A.(2).k, 4.A.(2).1, 4.B.(1)d.vi, 4.B.(1)d.ix, 4.B.(2)a, 4.b.(2)a, 4.B.(2)c.i, 4.B.(2)c.ii, 4.C.(2)a., 4.D.(1)c.
[13] In particular, the city contends that Defendants' SWPPP violates at least the following provisions of Appendix F of the General Permit regarding the structure and content of their SWPPP: § I.A.6., III.A.1., III.A.2., III.A.3., III. A.4., III.A.5., IV.A.2., IV.A.3., IV.B.1, IV.B.2., and IV.B.3.
[14] In particular, the City contends that Defendants' SWPPP violates at least the following provisions of Appendix E of the General Permit regarding erosion and sediment controls: §§ A., B., B.1., B.2.a., B.2.b., C.1., C.4., C.5., E.4.d., E.4.f., E.4.g., and E.8. The