federal law, refers to the PADEP and PADEP only. PADEP is the state administrative agency that is charged by the Clean Water Act to issue, condition, or deny water quality certifications, not the EHB. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341. Rather, the EHB’s authority and jurisdiction exist pursuant to state law only. See 35 P.S. § 7514(c). Intervenor argues that this Court should impose an exhaustion requirement on Plaintiff because many of the policy reasons for requiring exhaustion apply here. “Exhaustion concerns apply with particular force when the action under review involves exercise of the agency’s discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the agency to apply its special expertise.” See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute, Prison Litigation
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit and if exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing dismissal is mandatory holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court holding that because the fha explicitly provides that an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust parallel administrative remedies provided through hud before commencing a federal action it would seem logical that if an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust hud remedies before filing a federal action he or she should not have to exhaust local remedies