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 G—Criteria for Modifying the Secondary Treatment Requirements Under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act

40 C.F.R. § 125.61

Existence of and compliance with applicable water quality standards

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

(a) There must exist a water quality standard or standards applicable to the pollutant(s) for which a section 301(h) modified permit is requested, including:

(1) Water quality standards for biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved oxygen;

(2) Water quality standards for suspended solids, turbidity, light transmission, light scattering, or maintenance of the euphotic zone; and

(3) Water quality standards for pH.

(b) The applicant must: (1) Demonstrate that the modified discharge will comply with the above water quality standard(s); and

(2) Provide a determination signed by the State or interstate agency(s) authorized to provide certification under §§ 124.53 and 124.54 that the proposed modified discharge will comply with applicable provisions of State law including water quality standards. This determination shall include a discussion of the basis for the conclusion reached.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1994–1994 · leading case: Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir. 1994). · cites it 6× “The information necessary for a section 1311(h)(2) demonstration is described by the implementing *603 regulation, under which an applicant who cannot meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 125.61 (a)-(e) due to “human perturbations” other than its modified discharge must meet the…”
PR Aquaduct v. US EPA (1st Cir. 1994). “Consequently, we hold that the Board acted within its authority in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and summarily terminating the administrative appeal on the ground that the studies submitted by petitioner failed to make any attempt to satisfy the strictures of 40…”
PR Aquaduct v. US EPA (1st Cir. 1994). “Consequently, we hold that the Board acted within its authority in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and summarily terminating the administrative appeal on the ground that the studies submitted by petitioner failed to make any attempt to satisfy the strictures of 40…”
— 40 C.F.R. § 125.61(f)(3) — 2 cases
PR Aquaduct v. US EPA (1st Cir. 1994). “Consequently, we hold that the Board acted within its authority in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and summarily terminating the administrative appeal on the ground that the studies submitted by petitioner failed to make any attempt to satisfy the strictures of 40…”
PR Aquaduct v. US EPA (1st Cir. 1994). “Consequently, we hold that the Board acted within its authority in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and summarily terminating the administrative appeal on the ground that the studies submitted by petitioner failed to make any attempt to satisfy the strictures of 40…”
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.