42 U.S.C. § 7661e
Other authorities
Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent a State, or interstate permitting authority, from establishing additional permitting requirements not inconsistent with this chapter.
The provisions of this subchapter, including provisions regarding schedules for submission and approval or disapproval of permit applications, shall apply to permits implementing the requirements of subchapter IV–A except as modified by that subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1996–2009 · leading case: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2002)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) (1994 & Supp. V 1999).”
Romoland School District v. Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC (2008)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a). Rather than imposing an additional set of requirements on pollution sources, this permitting scheme was intended to “incorporate the requirements of the Act (including SIP requirements) that are[already] applicable to the source.”
The Sierra Club v. Stephen L. Johnson (2006)
“EPA argues that reporting of “any required monitoring” can be achieved in a variety of ways, and that neither 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) nor 40 C.F.R. *1282 § 70.”
Public Citizen, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(d); 40 C.F.R. § 70.6 (d).”
New York v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (2003)
“42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a), (b). The operating permits must include limitations on emissions and other conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the PSD program.”
Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency (2008)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(b). EPA declined such an undertaking.”
Sierra Club v. Portland General Electric Co. (2009)
“3d at 794; (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a), (a); 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.”
Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency (1996)
“42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a)-(c). Each permit must include inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the Act.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) — 6 cases
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2002)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) (1994 & Supp. V 1999).”
Romoland School District v. Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC (2008)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a). Rather than imposing an additional set of requirements on pollution sources, this permitting scheme was intended to “incorporate the requirements of the Act (including SIP requirements) that are[already] applicable to the source.”
The Sierra Club v. Stephen L. Johnson (2006)
“EPA argues that reporting of “any required monitoring” can be achieved in a variety of ways, and that neither 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) nor 40 C.F.R. *1282 § 70.”
New York v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (2003)
“42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a), (b). The operating permits must include limitations on emissions and other conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the PSD program.”
Sierra Club v. Portland General Electric Co. (2009)
“3d at 794; (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a), (a); 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(b) — 1 case
Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency (2008)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(b). EPA declined such an undertaking.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7661e(d) — 1 case
Public Citizen, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003)
“42 U.S.C. § 7661e(d); 40 C.F.R. § 70.6 (d).”
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.