40 C.F.R. § 49.11

Actions under section 301(d)(4) authority

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

Notwithstanding any determination made on the basis of authorities granted the Administrator under any other provision of this section, the Administrator, pursuant to the discretionary authority explicitly granted to the Administrator under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4):

(a) Shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such Federal implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections 304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted tribal implementation plan.

(b) May provide up to 95 percent of the cost of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. After two years from the date of each tribe's initial grant award, the maximum Federal share will be reduced to 90 percent, as long as the Regional Administrator determines that the tribe meets certain economic indicators that would provide an objective assessment of the tribe's ability to increase its share. The Regional Administrator may increase the maximum Federal share to 100 percent if the tribe can demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator that fiscal circumstances within the tribe are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match would impose undue hardship.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2009–2017 · leading case: Wildearth Guardians v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2014).
Wildearth Guardians v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “at 64222-28; 40 C.F.R. § 49.11 (a) (2013). Both NOx and PM contribute to visibility impairment.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 562 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 49.11 (a). Here, the Navajo Nation did not submit a tribal plan, and the Plant’s emissions remained officially unregulated, although the Plant voluntarily complied with the New Mexico plan.”
Yazzie v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 851 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “” 40 C.F.R. § 49.11 (a). The TAR also exempted tribes from certain CAA requirements because States were farther along in “developing air planning and implementation expertise.”
Michigan v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2009). “40 C.F.R. § 49.11 . Both a State and a Tribe are authorized to redesignate land within their boundaries to Class I status.”
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Interior, 794 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2011). “40 C.F.R. § 49.11 . In addition to EPA and the States, Federal Land Managers (“FMLs”), 6 such as the Departments in the present case, play a role in this process.”
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2011). “40 C.F.R. § 49.11 . In addition to EPA and the States, Federal Land Managers (“FMLs”),6 such as the Departments in the present case, play a role in this process.”
State of Michigan v. Env't Prot. Agenc (7th Cir. 2009). “40 C.F.R. § 49.11 . Both a State and a Tribe are authorized to redesignate land within their boundaries to Class I status.”
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.