40 C.F.R. § 51.118

Stack height provisions

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

(a) The plan must provide that the degree of emission limitation required of any source for control of any air pollutant must not be affected by so much of any source's stack height that exceeds good engineering practice or by any other dispersion technique, except as provided in § 51.118(b). The plan must provide that before a State submits to EPA a new or revised emission limitation that is based on a good engineering practice stack height that exceeds the height allowed by § 51.100(ii) (1) or (2), the State must notify the public of the availabilty of the demonstration study and must provide opportunity for a public hearing on it. This section does not require the plan to restrict, in any manner, the actual stack height of any source.

(b) The provisions of § 51.118(a) shall not apply to (1) stack heights in existence, or dispersion techniques implemented on or before December 31, 1970, except where pollutants are being emitted from such stacks or using such dispersion techniques by sources, as defined in section 111(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, which were constructed, or reconstructed, or for which major modifications, as defined in §§ 51.165(a)(1)(v)(A), 51.166(b)(2)(i) and 52.21(b)(2)(i), were carried out after December 31, 1970; or (2) coal-fired steam electric generating units subject to the provisions of section 118 of the Clean Air Act, which commenced operation before July 1, 1957, and whose stacks were construced under a construction contract awarded before February 8, 1974.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2012–2012 · leading case: Montana Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012).
Montana Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012). “Because we previously concluded that the EPA properly rejected Montana’s calculated stack height credit in the SIP and that it was proper to use the 65-meter de minimis figure instead, see 40 C.F.R. § 51.118 , we likewise hold here that the EPA did not act arbitrarily in using…”
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.