304, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989)). As noted, the Hallst-rom court determined that strict compliance with the 60-day notice requirement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) was a “mandatory condition! ] precedent” to a citizen suit brought under that statute. 493 U.S. at 31, 110 5.Ct. 304. In both ABC Rail and Hallst-rom, the issue was whether failure to comply with the 60-day notice requirement was fatal; these cases do not speak directly to the issue of what constitutes sufficient notice under the applicable regulation. A number of courts, however, have found guidance in the Hallstrom court’s rationale for strict interpretation of environmental statute notice requirements. Addressing the proper interpretation of the RCRA cit ironment v. Eaton, 644 F.2d 995 (3rd Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>)). Determining that the RCRA notice provision
holding that where the defendant was in default the district court correctly accepted the fact allegations of the complaint as true holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact holding that party must comply with notice and cure provisions before seeking remedy for default under contract holding district court had discretion to modify the threeday notice requirement for default judgment by giving notice in a show cause order holding that notice provision of cwa was satisfied where district court stayed the proceedings for 60 days in order to cure the procedural default