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 Ctr. for Env't Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002).
Minnesota Ctr. for Env't Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) (1994 & Supp. V 1999).”
Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 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, 436 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 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.”
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 343 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 7661e(d); 40 C.F.R. § 70.6 (d).”
New York v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 650 (W.D.N.Y. 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. Env't Prot. Agency, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “42 U.S.C. § 7661e(b). EPA declined such an undertaking.”
Sierra Club v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 663 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Or. 2009). “3d at 794; (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661e(a), (a); 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.”
W. States Petroleum Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency, 87 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 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 Ctr. for Env't Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 7661e(a) (1994 & Supp. V 1999).”
Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 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, 436 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 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., 263 F. Supp. 2d 650 (W.D.N.Y. 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 Gen. Elec. Co., 663 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Or. 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. Env't Prot. Agency, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “42 U.S.C. § 7661e(b). EPA declined such an undertaking.”
42 U.S.C. § 7661e(d): 1 case
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 343 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 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.