(a) If the State does not adopt the changes specified by the Regional Administrator within 90 days after notification of the Regional Administrator's disapproval, the Administrator shall promptly propose and promulgate such standard.
(b) The Administrator may also propose and promulgate a regulation, applicable to one or more navigable waters, setting forth a new or revised standard upon determining such a standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. To constitute an Administrator's determination that a new or revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, such determination must:
(1) Be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate, and
(2) Contain a statement that the document constitutes an Administrator's determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
(c) In promulgating water quality standards, the Administrator is subject to the same policies, procedures, analyses, and public participation requirements established for States in these regulations.
[48 FR 51405, Nov. 8, 1983, as amended at 80 FR 51049, Aug. 21, 2015
Notes of Decisions
Gulf Restoration Network v. Gina McCarthy, 783 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 131.22 (c). 12 . The organizations included: Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, 'Iowa…”
Idaho Min. Ass'n, Inc. v. Browner, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (D. Idaho 2000).
· cites it 6× “§ 1313 (c)(4)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 131.22 (a). In doing so, the EPA “is subject to the same policies, procedures, analyses, and public participation requirements established for States in [the EPA] regulations.”
Am. Wildlands v. Browner, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Colo. 2000).
“§ 1313 (c)(3)-(4), and 40 C.F.R. § 131.22 (a)(1999), by failing promptly to promulgate replacement standards for those water quality standards that it disapproved on December 24, 1998 and January 26, 1999; (4) whether EPA’s failure to review and approve or disapprove Montana’s…”
Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2022 NY Slip Op 04336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
“3, 2014 at 17-19; see generally 33 USC § 1313 [c] [3], [4]; 40 CFR 131.22). The proposed rule would accomplish this by adding language to the rules for Class I and Class SD waters requiring that those waters be "suitable for primary contact recreation," such as swimming (6 NYCRR…”
Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2022 NY Slip Op 04336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
“3, 2014 at 17-19; see generally 33 USC § 1313 [c] [3], [4]; 40 CFR 131.22). The proposed rule would accomplish this by adding language to the rules for Class I and Class SD waters requiring that those waters be "suitable for primary contact recreation," such as swimming (6 NYCRR…”
Gulf Restoration Network v. Gina McCarthy (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “11 40 C.F.R. § 131.22 (c). 12 The organizations included: Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Iowa…”
Earth Island Inst. v. Wheeler (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“at 14 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 131.22 (b)(1)). But the 2011 EPA-OIG Report 9 explicitly acknowledged that “the EPA Administrator testified that changes are needed to the 10 NCP’s Subpart J, including dispersant registration and a more complete range of tests to address 11 human and…”
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.