Jump to navigation
The procedures for withdrawal of sludge management programs shall be those set forth in 40 CFR 123.64.
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.
This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].
It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.
§ 1251 - Congressional declaration of goals and policy
§ 1252 - Comprehensive programs for water pollution control
§ 1252a - Reservoir projects, water storage; modification; storage for other than for water quality, opinion of Federal agency, committee resolutions of approval;...prescribed water quality benefits in relation to total project benefits
§ 1253 - Interstate cooperation and uniform laws
§ 1254 - Research, investigations, training, and information
§ 1254a - Research on effects of pollutants
§ 1255 - Grants for research and development
§ 1256 - Grants for pollution control programs
§ 1257 - Mine water pollution control demonstrations
§ 1257a - State demonstration programs for cleanup of abandoned mines for use as waste disposal sites; authorization of appropriations
§ 1258 - Pollution control in the Great Lakes
§ 1259 - Training grants and contracts
§ 1260 - Applications; allocation
§ 1261 - Scholarships
§ 1262 - Definitions and authorizations
§ 1263 - Alaska village demonstration projects
§ 1263a - Grants to Alaska to improve sanitation in rural and Native villages
§ 1264 - Omitted
§ 1265 - In-place toxic pollutants
§ 1266 - Hudson River reclamation demonstration project
§ 1267 - Chesapeake Bay
§ 1268 - Great Lakes
§ 1269 - Long Island Sound
§ 1270 - Lake Champlain Basin Program
§ 1271 - Sediment survey and monitoring
§ 1271a - Research and development program
§ 1272 - Environmental dredging
§ 1273 - Lake Pontchartrain Basin
§ 1274 - Watershed pilot projects
Title 40 published on 2015-07-01
The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 40 CFR Part 501 after this date.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing this final regulation that requires the electronic reporting and sharing of Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program information instead of the current paper-based reporting of this information. This action will save time and resources for permittees, states, tribes, territories, and the U.S. Government while increasing data accuracy, improving compliance, and supporting EPA's goal of providing better protection of the nation's waters. By modernizing this Clean Water Act reporting program, permittees and regulators will use existing, available information technology to electronically report information and data related to the NPDES permit program. This regulation will help provide greater clarity on who is and who is not in compliance and enhances transparency by providing a timelier, complete, more accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. By providing improved data in a more accessible form, this final rulemaking will improve the ability of EPA and authorized NPDES programs to target the most serious water quality and compliance problems. Furthermore, by reducing the time and resources devoted to outdated data management activities, the rule could allow authorized NPDES programs to shift limited resources to important water quality and public health protection activities. The transition from paper to electronic reporting will require close coordination and cooperation between EPA and authorized NPDES programs. This regulation provides important flexibility while still implementing electronic reporting in a timely and effective fashion.
Waters on the majority of Indian reservations do not have water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment. Only 40 of over 300 federally recognized tribes with reservations have completed the process of obtaining EPA's approval to be treated in a manner similar to a state (TAS), and adopting standards for their waters that EPA has approved. EPA proposes to streamline how tribes apply for TAS for the water quality standards program and other Clean Water Act regulatory programs. The proposal would reduce the burden on applicant tribes and advance cooperative federalism by facilitating tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress. Since 1991, EPA has followed a cautious approach that requires applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate waters and activities on their reservations under principles of federal Indian common law. The Agency has consistently stated that its approach was subject to change in the event of further congressional or judicial guidance addressing tribal authority under section 518 of the Clean Water Act. Having received such guidance, EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the Act, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The reinterpretation would also bring EPA's treatment of tribes under the Clean Water Act in line with EPA's treatment of tribes under the Clean Air Act, which has similar statutory language addressing tribal regulation of Indian reservation areas. This action would not revise any regulatory text. Regulatory provisions would remain in effect requiring tribes to identify the boundaries of the reservation areas over which they seek to exercise authority and allowing the adjacent state(s) to comment to EPA on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority. As a streamlining step, the proposed interpretive rule would have no significant cost.