40 C.F.R. § 123.21

Elements of a program submission

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any State that seeks to administer a program under this part shall submit to the Administrator at least three copies of a program submission. The submission shall contain the following:

(1) A letter from the Governor of the State (or in the case of an Indian Tribe in accordance with § 123.33(b), the Tribal authority exercising powers substantially similar to those of a State Governor) requesting program approval;

(2) A complete program description, as required by § 123.22, describing how the State intends to carry out its responsibilities under this part;

(3) An Attorney General's statement as required by § 123.23;

(4) A Memorandum of Agreement with the Regional Administrator as required by § 123.24;

(5) Copies of all applicable State statutes and regulations, including those governing State administrative procedures;

(b)(1) Within 30 days of receipt by EPA of a State program submission, EPA will notify the State whether its submission is complete. If EPA finds that a State's submission is complete, the statutory review period (i.e., the period of time allotted for formal EPA review of a proposed State program under CWA) shall be deemed to have begun on the date of receipt of the State's submission. If EPA finds that a State's submission is incomplete, the statutory review period shall not begin until all the necessary information is received by EPA.

(2) In the case of an Indian Tribe eligible under § 123.33(b), EPA shall take into consideration the contents of the Tribe's request submitted under § 123.32, in determining if the program submission required by § 123.21(a) is complete.

(c) If the State's submission is materially changed during the statutory review period, the statutory review period shall begin again upon receipt of the revised submission.

(d) The State and EPA may extend the statutory review period by agreement.

[48 FR 14178, Apr. 1, 1983; 50 FR 6941, Feb. 19, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 67981, Dec. 22, 1993; 59 FR 64343, Dec. 14, 1994]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2019 · leading case: Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 413 (M.D. Penn. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 413 (M.D. Penn. 1989). “” See 40 C.F.R. § 123.21 (a)(5) (elements of a program submission); see also id.”

Andersen v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2011 WI 19 (Wis. 2011). “§ 1342 (b); 40 C.F.R. § 123.21 (a). ¶ 36. 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (b) sets forth the requirements that a state's proposed permit program must meet in order to gain approval by the EPA.”

Wisconsin Resources Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2013). “§ 1365 (d). Here, plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees because they have failed to establish a violation of the CWA.”

Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007). “The EPA and Maine agreed to extend the 90-day review period four times, see 40 C.F.R. § 123.21 (d), eventually setting September 26, 2000, as the new deadline.”

Cahaba Riverkeeper v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency (11th Cir. 2019). “Petitioners here are seven environmental groups: Cahaba Riverkeeper; Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper, Inc.; Friends of Hurricane Creek; Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc.”

Wisconsin Resources Prot. v. Flambeau Mining Co. (7th Cir. 2013). “2 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) administers the WPDES program and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 1 The requisite steps for obtaining EPA approval are set forth in 40 C.”

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.