(a) Under CWA section 401(a)(1), EPA may not issue a permit until a certification is granted or waived in accordance with that section by the State in which the discharge originates or will originate.
(b) Consistent with the requirements set forth in §§ 121.4 and 121.5 of this chapter, applications for individual permits may be forwarded by the Regional Administrator to the certifying State agency with a request to act on the request for certification consistent with § 121.7 of this chapter.
(c) If State certification has not been requested by the time the draft permit is prepared, the Regional Administrator shall send the certifying State agency a request for certification consistent with § 121.5 of this chapter and include a copy of the draft permit.
(d) State certification shall be granted or denied within the reasonable period of time as required under CWA section 401(a)(1). The State shall send a notice of its action, including a copy of any certification, to the applicant and the Regional Administrator.
(e) State certification on a draft permit may include a statement of the extent to which each condition of the draft permit can be made less stringent without violating the requirements of State law, including water quality standards.
[48 FR 14264, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 88 FR 66666, Sept. 27, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Stein v. Kelso, 846 P.2d 123 (Alaska 1993).
· cites it 3× “40 C.F.R. § 124.53 (e)(2) (1991). The state is also allowed to note in its certification whether the EPA could lower any limits and remain within state law.”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Hammond, 726 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984).
“§ 1341 (a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 124.53 (a), (e). Thus, absent preemption by another federal statute, such as the PWSA/PTSA, the Alaska statute at issue in this case is converted by the CWA into a federal standard which the EPA is required to enforce.”
Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 684 F.2d 1041 (1st Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Although the new regulations also require the state to cite to state law when imposing more stringent conditions on a draft permit, 40 C.F.R. § 124.53 (e)(1) (1981), and to indicate the extent to which the condition can be relaxed without violating state law, 40 C.”
Port of Oswego Auth. v. Grannis, 70 A.D.3d 1101 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).
“Here, ample scientific evidence and expert opinion exists in the record to support DEC’S determination that the challenged conditions are necessary to ensure federal permittees’ compliance with New York’s existing narrative water quality standards (see ECL art 17; 6 NYCRR parts…”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 279 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2002).
“Because the proposed “project area ZOD” is less stringent than previous ZODs for LTFs, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 124.53 (e)(3), EPA requests a statement from the Department explaining how the proposed ZOD complies with state law.”
Port of Oswego Auth. v. Grannis, 24 Misc. 3d 1042 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).
“EPA required the State to submit its Certification within 60 days of the date of EPA’s mailing of the draft permit (see 40 CFR 124.53 [c] [3]), that is 60 days from June 17, 2008.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 124.53(c)(3) — 2 cases
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.