C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS › PART 125—CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM › Subpart N—Requirements Applicable to Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Under Section 316(b) of the Act

40 C.F.R. § 125.135

May alternative requirements be authorized?

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

(a) Any interested person may request that alternative requirements less stringent than those specified in § 125.134(a) through (d) be imposed in the permit. The Director may establish alternative requirements less stringent than the requirements of § 125.134(a) through (d) only if:

(1) There is an applicable requirement under § 125.134(a) through (d);

(2) The Director determines that data specific to the facility indicate that compliance with the requirement at issue would result in compliance costs wholly out of proportion to the costs EPA considered in establishing the requirement at issue or would result in significant adverse impacts on local water resources other than impingement or entrainment, or significant adverse impacts on energy markets;

(3) The alternative requirement requested is no less stringent than justified by the wholly out of proportion cost or the significant adverse impacts on local water resources other than impingement or entrainment, or significant adverse impacts on energy markets; and

(4) The alternative requirement will ensure compliance with other applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act and any applicable requirement of federal or state law.

(b) The burden is on the person requesting the alternative requirement to demonstrate that alternative requirements should be authorized.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: ConocoPhillips Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ConocoPhillips Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2010). “40 C.F.R. § 125.135 . 72 . 33 U.S.C. § 1369 (b)(1)(E).”
ConocoPhillips Co v. EPA (5th Cir. 2010). “It was in light of this decision 71 40 C.F.R. § 125.135 . 15 No. 06-60662 that Riverkeeper and the EPA filed a motion for voluntary remand of the existing-facilities Rule, which motion Intervenor API opposes.”
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.