40 C.F.R. § 123.62

Procedures for revision of State programs

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

(a) Either EPA or the approved State may initiate program revision. Program revision may be necessary when the controlling Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or supplemented. The State shall keep EPA fully informed of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority, its forms, procedures, or priorities. Grounds for program revision include cases where a State's existing approved program includes authority to issue NPDES permits for activities on a Federal Indian reservation and an Indian Tribe has subsequently been approved for assumption of the NPDES program under 40 CFR part 123 extending to those lands.

(b) Revision of a State program shall be accomplished as follows:

(1) The State shall submit a modified program description, Attorney General's statement, Memorandum of Agreement, or such other documents as EPA determines to be necessary under the circumstances.

(2) Whenever EPA determines that the proposed program revision is substantial, EPA shall issue public notice and provide an opportunity to comment for a period of at least 30 days. The public notice shall be mailed to interested persons and shall be published in the Federal Register and in enough of the largest newspapers in the State to provide Statewide coverage. The public notice shall summarize the proposed revisions and provide for the opportunity to request a public hearing. Such a hearing will be held if there is significant public interest based on requests received.

(3) The Administrator will approve or disapprove program revisions based on the requirements of this part (or, in the case of a sewage sludge management program, 40 CFR part 501) and of the CWA.

(4) A program revision shall become effective upon the approval of the Administrator. Notice of approval of any substantial revision shall be published in the Federal Register. Notice of approval of non-substantial program revisions may be given by a letter from the Administrator to the State Governor or his designee.

(c) States with approved programs must notify EPA whenever they propose to transfer all or part of any program from the approved State agency to any other State agency, and must identify any new division of responsibilities among the agencies involved. The new agency is not authorized to administer the program until approved by the Administrator under paragraph (b) of this section. Organizational charts required under § 123.22(b) (or, in the case of a sewage sludge management program, § 501.12(b) of this chapter) must be revised and resubmitted.

(d) Whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that circumstances have changed with respect to a State program, he may request, and the State shall provide, a supplemental Attorney General's statement, program description, or such other documents or information as are necessary.

(e) State NPDES programs only. All new programs must comply with these regulations immediately upon approval. Any approved State section 402 permit program which requires revision to conform to this part shall be so revised within one year of the date of promulgation of these regulations, unless a State must amend or enact a statute in order to make the required revision in which case such revision shall take place within 2 years, except that revision of State programs to implement the requirements of 40 CFR part 403 (pretreatment) shall be accomplished as provided in 40 CFR 403.10. In addition, approved States shall submit, within 6 months, copies of their permit forms for EPA review and approval. Approved States shall also assure that permit applicants, other than POTWs, submit, as part of their application, the information required under §§ 124.4(d) and 122.21 (g) or (h), as appropriate.

(f) Revision of a State program by a Great Lakes State or Tribe (as defined in 40 CFR 132.2) to conform to section 118 of the CWA and 40 CFR part 132 shall be accomplished pursuant to 40 CFR part 132.

[48 FR 14178, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 31842, Aug. 8, 1984; 50 FR 6941, Feb. 19, 1985; 53 FR 33007, Sept. 6, 1988; 58 FR 67983, Dec. 22, 1993; 60 FR 15386, Mar. 23, 1995; 63 FR 45123, Aug. 24, 1998]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2016 · leading case: Valstad Ex Rel. Valstad Quarry, Inc. v. Cipriano

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Valstad Ex Rel. Valstad Quarry, Inc. v. Cipriano (2005) illappct · cites it 8× “" 40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (a) (2004). Plaintiffs claim that under the plain language of section 123.”

Larry Askins v. Ohio Department of Agriculture (2016) ca6 · cites it 3× “40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (c). B. Ohio’s NPDES Program In 1974, the U.”

Wisconsin Resources Protection Council v. Flambeau Mining Co. (2013) ca7 · cites it 4× “40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (b)(1). The EPA “will approve or disapprove program revisions based on the requirements .”

Andersen v. Department of Natural Resources (2011) wis · cites it 3× “"); 40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (a). To that end, the state must keep the EPA fully informed of any proposed modifications to its permit program.”

Wisconsin Resources Protection Council v. Flambeau Mining Co. (2012) wiwd · cites it 5× “As relevant to this case, any revisions to a state-approved program must be submitted to the EPA through a process set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (“Procedure for revision of state programs”).”

Sierra Club MacKinac Chapter v. Department of Environmental Quality (2008) michctapp · cites it 2× “We conducted the review under 40 CFR 123.62. With this letter, I am pleased to inform you that we approve the revision.”

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Marfork Coal Co. (2013) wvsd “40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (b)(4). Based on the Court's ruling, however, it is unnecessary to decide this question.”

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta (1996) gand “e NPDES program or, if the State refuses, withdraw the NPDES program as follows: If Georgia fails to implement TMDLs through the NPDES process, or EPA is otherwise unable to implement the TMDLs through the permit program described above due to State actions or inactions, EPA…”

Save Valley, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) insd · cites it 5× “diana permit to be equivalent to an NPDES permit, “the confined feeding rule either: (1) must establish an NPDES general permit, as authorized by Indiana Administrative Code title 327, article 15, and the revision to the Indiana NPDES program that EPA approved in 1991, or (2)…”

Sierra Club v. Hankinson (1996) gand “11) If Georgia fails to implement TMDLs through the NPDES process, or EPA is otherwise unable to implement the TMDLs through the permit program described above due to State actions or inactions, EPA shall initiate procedures to revise the State NPDES program to incorporate the…”

Valstad v. Cipriano (2005) illappct · cites it 4× “" 40 C.F.R. §123.62 (a) (2004). Plaintiffs claim that under the plain language of section 123.”

Wisconsin Resources Protection v. Flambeau Mining Company (2013) ca7 · cites it 3× “4 40 C.F.R. § 123.62 (b)(2) provides that “[w]henever EPA determines that the proposed program revision is substantial, EPA shall” take various steps, including providing for public notice and comment.”

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.