42 U.S.C. § 9707

Comprehensive program management plan

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

(a) Preparation; scope; consultative requirements

The Secretary is authorized and directed to prepare a comprehensive program management plan for the conduct of research, development, and demonstration activities under this chapter consistent with the provisions of section 9703 of this title. In the preparation of such plan, the Secretary shall consult with the Commission and the Advisory Committee and with the heads of such other Government agencies and such public and private organizations as he deems appropriate.

(b) Transmission to Congressional committees; revisions

The Secretary shall transmit the comprehensive program management plan along with any comments by the Commission on the plan to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate within twelve months after December 22, 1980. Revisions to the plan shall be transmitted to such committees whenever deemed appropriate by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 96–567, § 8, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3332; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, § 1051(l), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 717.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1995—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–66 struck out subsec. (c) which directed Secretary of Energy to transmit to Congress, concurrently with submission of President’s annual budget to Congress, detailed description of comprehensive plan as then in effect.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of certain functions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Chairman thereof, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1980, 45 F.R. 40561, 94 Stat. 3585, set out as a note under section 5841 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2018). “§ 9613 (f), and the claims for the costs at the Baton Rouge facility are governed by § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9707 (a). In 2009, Exxon filed two contract actions against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking recovery for avgas-related environmental…”

Burlington N. R.R. v. Woods Indus., Inc., 815 F. Supp. 1384 (E.D. Wash. 1993). “42 U.S.C. § 9707 (a)(4). (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Ct.”

Harris v. Oil Reclaiming Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Kan. 2000). “The OPA defines an “operator” of a facility in circular terms — an operator of an onshore facility is defined simply as a person “operating such onshore facility.” 33 U.S.”

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.