to say that WQBELs are necessary to ensure that water quality standards are met, while specific enforcement of such WQBELs is unnecessary. More importantly, this lack of enforcement violates the CWA regulations, which mandate that no permit may be issued “[w]hen the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d). Accordingly, EPA’s failure to include monitoring for compliance with WQBELs was inconsistent with regulations and thus arbitrary and capricious. C. Remand Accordingly, we remand this matter to EPA for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The 2013 VGP is to remain in place until EPA issues a new VGP. See Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear
recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that verbal requirement of need not contained in hunting regulation was addition of substance and thus regulation under apa holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted