42 U.S.C. § 6929

Retention of State authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon the effective date of regulations under this subchapter no State or political subdivision may impose any requirements less stringent than those authorized under this subchapter respecting the same matter as governed by such regulations, except that if application of a regulation with respect to any matter under this subchapter is postponed or enjoined by the action of any court, no State or political subdivision shall be prohibited from acting with respect to the same aspect of such matter until such time as such regulation takes effect. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirements, including those for site selection, which are more stringent than those imposed by such regulations. Nothing in this chapter (or in any regulation adopted under this chapter) shall be construed to prohibit any State from requiring that the State be provided with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste which is generated within that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility within that State.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Rogers, 27 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Rogers, 27 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6929 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Congress explicitly intended not to foreclose state and local oversight of hazardous waste management more strict than federal requirements.”

Colorado Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't, Hazardous Materials & Waste Mgmt. Div. v. United States, 693 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 3 42 U.S.C. § 6929 (emphasis added). Pursuant to the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, the federal government and its agencies must comply with an EPA authorized state program regulating hazardous waste, such as Colorado’s, “ ‘to the same extent, as any person.”

MacDermid, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 778 A.2d 7 (Conn. 2001). “42 U.S.C. § 6929 (b) (1994). 4 The agency generally does not enforce the federal standards in states that have authorized regulatory programs that are no less stringent than the agency regulations.”

IT Corp. v. Solano Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 820 P.2d 1023 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 2× “” ( 42 U.S.C. § 6929 , italics added.) Neither IT nor its amicus curiae argues in this court that the Board’s order is directly preempted by the RCRA.”

Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., 965 F.2d 1287 (3rd Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6929 (West Supp.1992). OBC does not object to New Jersey’s more expansive definition of “solid waste,” but argues that New Jersey’s use of the RCRA hazardous waste codes creates a detrimental impact upon interstate commerce because it appears that such coding ipso…”

Upjohn Co. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 616 A.2d 786 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6929 .” Id. The District Court was not persuaded by Upjohn’s argument that “the Approval constitutes an EPA determination that Upjohn’s plan represents the most sound environmental action, and therefore any obstacle to its implementation is an obstacle to…”

Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. William J. Scott, Illinois Ex Rel. William J. Scott v. Nuclear Eng'g Co., 660 F.2d 241 (7th Cir. 1981). “See 42 U.S.C. § 6929 . See also Rettig v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Association, 405 F.”

Ogden Env't Servs. v. City of San Diego, 687 F. Supp. 1436 (S.D. Cal. 1988). · cites it 2× “While such delegation of federal regulatory responsibility runs only to the states, and not to local government entities, the Act also expressly provides that: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any…”

United States of Am., United States of Am. v. Marine Shale Processors, S. Wood Piedmont Co., Intervenor-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, 81 F.3d 1361 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6929 . 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (a) gave EPA the power to enforce the substance of an approved state’s program against private parties in that state.”

LaFarge Corp. v. Campbell, 813 F. Supp. 501 (W.D. Tex. 1993). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 6929 (1992 Supp.) (“the savings clause”) (emphasis added).”

Secured Env't Mgmt., Inc. v. Texas Nat. Resource Conservation Comm'n, 97 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 6929 . *249 If approved, SEM’s program would have been the first use of salt-dome caverns to store hazardous waste in Texas.”

State v. Cote, 945 A.2d 412 (Conn. 2008). “The federal act also provides: “Upon the effective date of regulations under [the hazardous waste] subchapter no [s]tate or political subdivision may impose any requirements less stringent than those authorized under this subchapter respecting the same matter as governed by such…”

Show all 55 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.