under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), file a suit “against any person ... who is alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation.” “Effluent standard or limitation” is further defined to include, inter alia, those standards established pursuant to section 1311 and "a permit or condition ... issued under section 1342.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f). 3 . Like the CWA, the SMCRA contains a citizen suit provision that allows citizens to file a suit to enforce compliance with the SMCRA. 30 U.S.C. § 1270. 4 . Defendant is Maple Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation doing business in Summersville, West Virginia. 5 . Four outlets in this permit are subject to the selen h Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See also Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d
recognizing that in such close circumstances where the error involves the central issue in the case it is the better policy to require a new trial under the correct instruction holding that because the facts are not in dispute the court should review the arbitration waiver de novo and gathering federal cases holding the same recognizing that in those cases where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute it is the better view that  the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits citations omitted holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court