40 C.F.R. § 124.52

Permits required on a case-by-case basis

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

(a) Various sections of part 122, subpart B allow the Director to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that certain concentrated animal feeding operations (§ 122.23), concentrated aquatic animal production facilities (§ l22.24), storm water discharges (§ 122.26), and certain other facilities covered by general permits (§ 122.28) that do not generally require an individual permit may be required to obtain an individual permit because of their contributions to water pollution.

(b) Whenever the Regional Administrator decides that an individual permit is required under this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall notify the discharger in writing of that decision and the reasons for it, and shall send an application form with the notice. The discharger must apply for a permit under § 122.21 within 60 days of notice, unless permission for a later date is granted by the Regional Administrator. The question whether the designation was proper will remain open for consideration during the public comment period under § 124.11 and in any subsequent hearing.

(c) Prior to a case-by-case determination that an individual permit is required for a storm water discharge under this section (see § 122.26(a)(1)(v), (c)(1)(v), and (a)(9)(iii) of this chapter), the Regional Administrator may require the discharger to submit a permit application or other information regarding the discharge under section 308 of the CWA. In requiring such information, the Regional Administrator shall notify the discharger in writing and shall send an application form with the notice. The discharger must apply for a permit within 180 days of notice, unless permission for a later date is granted by the Regional Administrator. The question whether the initial designation was proper will remain open for consideration during the public comment period under § 124.11 and in any subsequent hearing.

[55 FR 48075, Nov. 16, 1990, as amended at 60 FR 17957, Apr. 7, 1995; 60 FR 19464, Apr. 18, 1995; 60 FR 40235, Aug. 7, 1995; 64 FR 68851, Dec. 8, 1999; 65 FR 30912, May 15, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Pruitt

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Pruitt (2018) ca1 · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs’ two suits focus on 40 C.F.R. § 124.52 (b), a regulation promulgated under the Clean Water Act.”

Dept. of Env. v. Carroll Cnty. Frederick Cnty. v. Dept. of Env. (2019) md “uality standards are being violated – there is a sound basis for concluding that discharges from each County’s MS4 contribute to violations of water quality 97 Carroll County asserts that, if the Department had acted under its residual designation authority, it was required to…”

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) mad · cites it 2× “§ 1365 , plaintiffs allege that the EPA has failed under 40 C.F.R. § 124.52 to distribute NPDES permit applications to various commercial, industrial, institutional, and high-density residential stormwater point sources along the Charles (the EPA does not contest the fact that…”

Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1982) ca9 “40 C.F.R. § 124.52 -.54, 44 Fed.Reg. 32934-32935, as recodified 40 C.”

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Regan (2023) mad · cites it 3× “1 1 For the proposition that the EPA has a nondiscretionary duty to notify dischargers of a residual designation, plaintiffs cite to 40 C.F.R. § 124.52 (b). See Compl. [Dkt # 1] ¶ 108.”

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.