C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER I—SOLID WASTES › PART 257—CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES › Subpart A—Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices

40 C.F.R. § 257.3-7

Air

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

(a) The facility or practice shall not engage in open burning of residential, commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste. This requirement does not apply to infrequent burning of agricultural wastes in the field, silvicultural wastes for forest management purposes, land-clearing debris, diseased trees, debris from emergency clean-up operations, and ordnance.

(b) For purposes of section 4004(a) of the Act, the facility shall not violate applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.

(c) As used in this section “open burning” means the combustion of solid waste without (1) control of combustion air to maintain adequate temperature for efficient combustion, (2) containment of the combustion reaction in an enclosed device to provide sufficient residence time and mixing for complete combustion, and (3) control of the emission of the combustion products.

[44 FR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979; 44 FR 54708, Sept. 21, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 47052, Sept. 23, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2007 · leading case: Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-7 . Idaho’s open burning criterion should have been examined by the district court because there are disputed issues of material fact regarding whether it had been violated.”
United States v. Torlaw Realty, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 967 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “§ 6945 ; see 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-7 (a) & 258.24(b). TV. CONCLUSION With respect to the United State’s claim of trespass, the Court finds the United States has demonstrated it suffered actual harm and Defendants’ entry onto the Site caused substantial harm to the United States.”
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.