With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". violated the same emission standards or limitations in its Title V permits both before and after the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs do not claim satisfaction of the third method of proving actionability: method (2)(b) continuing likelihood of recurrence. 11. Title V permits incorporate numerous, different regulatory requirements, and the Complex is regulated by over 120,000 permit conditions. Plaintiffs must prove Exxon repeatedly violated an emission standard or limitation, which includes a standard, limitation, schedule, term, or condition in one of Exxon’s Title v. permits. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1), (f)(4). Thus, it is insufficient to prove violation of one standard or limitation followed by violation of a different standard or limitation. ExxonMobil Corp., ECF No. 126 at 13 (<HOLDING>) (citing Patton v. Gen. Signal Corp., 984

A: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
B: holding that the caa allows citizen suits for a wholly past violation so long as there is a second violation of the same emission standard or limitation
C: holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa
D: holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations
B.