40 C.F.R. § 51.300

Purpose and applicability

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

(a) Purpose. The primary purposes of this subpart are to require States to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution; and to establish necessary additional procedures for new source permit applicants, States and Federal Land Managers to use in conducting the visibility impact analysis required for new sources under § 51.166. This subpart sets forth requirements addressing visibility impairment in its two principal forms: “reasonably attributable” impairment (i.e., impairment attributable to a single source/small group of sources) and regional haze (i.e., widespread haze from a multitude of sources which impairs visibility in every direction over a large area).

(b) Applicability The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all States as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) except Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35763, July 1, 1999; 82 FR 3122, Jan. 10, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Am. Corn Growers Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency, State of Michigan, Dep't of Env't Quality, Intervenors, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Corn Growers Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency, State of Michigan, Dep't of Env't Quality, Intervenors, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “for Reconsideration Pet’rs at 25 (quoting old 40 C.F.R. § 51.300 (a)(1)). This argument is meritless.”

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2014). “See 40 C.F.R. § 51.300 ; 45 Fed.Reg. at 80,086-87.”

State ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 815 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016). “35,714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 51.300 -.309). The D.C. Circuit partially vacated those regulations in American Corn Growers Ass’n v.”

WildEarth Guardians v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014). “40 C.F.R. § 51.300 (a). Sections 51.308 and 51.”

St. Marys Cement Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 782 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2015). “2, 1980) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.300 -.307). “[Generally,” the Agency found, “two types of air pollution .”

Colorado Mining Ass'n v. Urbina, 318 P.3d 562 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" See Regional Haze Rule, 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.300 to 51.309 (2012). Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are required to amend their SIPs to "establish goals .”

Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1988). “80,084 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 51.300 et seq.). Specifically, EPA determined that visibility impairment is of two types: 1) “plume blight,” i.”

Cent. Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1993). “See 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.300 -.307. The regulations specifically require states to identify those existing sources “which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute” to any visibility impairment which is “reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility.”

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.