(a) Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.
(1) The adequacy of a control strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of this part (Guideline on Air Quality Models).
(2) Where an air quality model specified in appendix W of this part (Guideline on Air Quality Models) is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model substituted. Such a modification or substitution of a model may be made on a case-by-case basis or, where appropriate, on a generic basis for a specific State program. Written approval of the Administrator must be obtained for any modification or substitution. In addition, use of a modified or substituted model must be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment under procedures set forth in § 51.102.
(b) The demonstration must include the following:
(1) A summary of the computations, assumptions, and judgments used to determine the degree of reduction of emissions (or reductions in the growth of emissions) that will result from the implementation of the control strategy.
(2) A presentation of emission levels expected to result from implementation of each measure of the control strategy.
(3) A presentation of the air quality levels expected to result from implementation of the overall control strategy presented either in tabular form or as an isopleth map showing expected maximum pollutant concentrations.
(4) A description of the dispersion models used to project air quality and to evaluate control strategies.
(5) For interstate regions, the analysis from each constituent State must, where practicable, be based upon the same regional emission inventory and air quality baseline.
[51 FR 40665, Nov. 7, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 38821, July 20, 1993; 60 FR 40468, Aug. 9, 1995; 61 FR 41840, Aug. 12, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 7511a(c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 . The attainment demonstration is based on the state’s control strategy for ozone-precursor emissions, which must ‘‘include enforceable emissions limitations, and such other control mea- sures TTT as may be necessary or appropriate to provide…”
Sierra Club v. Env't Prot. Agency, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 7511a(c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 . The attainment demonstration is based on the state’s control strategy for ozone-precursor emissions, which must “include enforceable emissions limitations, and such other control measures .”
S. California Gas Co. v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“§ 7410 (a)(2)(A) 3 ; 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 (2011).) Failure to meet federal air quality attainment standards can result in the imposition of sanctions including the loss of transportation project funding.”
BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2004).
“at 57,170; see 40 C.F.R. 51.112(a)(1) (referencing Appendix W as listing the applicable requirements for gauging the adequacy of a control strategy); 40 C.”
Wall v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The petitioners point out that under 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 (a)(1) (1999), the “adequacy of a control strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of this part (Guideline on Air Quality Models).”
Env't Def. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 369 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2004).
“” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 (a)(1). Appendix W in turn offers broad guidance on the use of grid modeling, including recommended types of models, design considerations, and a discussion of uncertainty of the models.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) — 2 cases
BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2004).
“at 57,170; see 40 C.F.R. 51.112(a)(1) (referencing Appendix W as listing the applicable requirements for gauging the adequacy of a control strategy); 40 C.”
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.