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 A—Criteria and Standards for Imposing Technology-Based Treatment Requirements Under Sections 301(b) and 402 of the Act

40 C.F.R. § 125.2

Definitions

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

For the purposes of this part, any reference to the Act shall mean the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA). Unless otherwise noted, the definitions in parts 122, 123 and 124 apply to this part.

[45 FR 33512, May 19, 1980]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1975–1988 · leading case: Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency, Nat'l Steel Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 543 F.2d 521 (3rd Cir. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency, Nat'l Steel Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 543 F.2d 521 (3rd Cir. 1976). “40 C.F.R. § 125.2 (a)(1). Referring to the Act’s definition of effluent limitation as meaning “any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, *527 rates and concentrations” 11 of pollutants, EPA correctly observes that the Net-Gross Regulations do not…”
People of the State of California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. The Env't Prot. Agency, & Russell E. Train, as Adm'r of the Env't Prot. Agency, State of Washington & Its Dep't of Ecology v. The Env't Prot. Agency & Russell E. Train, as Adm'r of the Env't Prot. Agency, United States of Am., 511 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1975). “Hence we declare invalid those portions of 40 C.F.R. 125.2(b) that exclude federal facilities discharging pollutants into navigable waters from compliance with any state permit program operating under NPDES.”
Env't Prot. Agency v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200 (1976). · cites it 2× “The implications that the state program would only embrace nonfederal dischargers on those navigable waters subject to the program and that the EPA *227 was authorized to and would continue to issue permits to federal dischargers were soon made explicit in 40 CFR §§ 125.2 (a)…”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 863 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1988). “See 40 C.F.R. § 125.2 (d)(3) (1987). Previous limitations that regulated a characteristic of a waste stream without identifying specific pollutants have been upheld.”
People of California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 511 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1975). “Hence we declare invalid those portions of 40 C.F.R. 125.2(b) that exclude federal facilities discharging pollutants into navigable waters from compliance with any state permit program operating under NPDES.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 125.2(b) — 2 cases
People of the State of California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. The Env't Prot. Agency, & Russell E. Train, as Adm'r of the Env't Prot. Agency, State of Washington & Its Dep't of Ecology v. The Env't Prot. Agency & Russell E. Train, as Adm'r of the Env't Prot. Agency, United States of Am., 511 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1975). “Hence we declare invalid those portions of 40 C.F.R. 125.2(b) that exclude federal facilities discharging pollutants into navigable waters from compliance with any state permit program operating under NPDES.”
People of California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 511 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1975). “Hence we declare invalid those portions of 40 C.F.R. 125.2(b) that exclude federal facilities discharging pollutants into navigable waters from compliance with any state permit program operating under NPDES.”
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.