40 C.F.R. § 60.40

Applicability and designation of affected facility

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

(a) The affected facilities to which the provisions of this subpart apply are:

(1) Each fossil-fuel-fired steam generating unit of more than 73 megawatts (MW) heat input rate (250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr)).

(2) Each fossil-fuel and wood-residue-fired steam generating unit capable of firing fossil fuel at a heat input rate of more than 73 MW (250 MMBtu/hr).

(b) Any change to an existing fossil-fuel-fired steam generating unit to accommodate the use of combustible materials, other than fossil fuels as defined in this subpart, shall not bring that unit under the applicability of this subpart.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commenced construction or modification after August 17, 1971, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.

(d) The requirements of §§ 60.44 (a)(4), (a)(5), (b) and (d), and 60.45(f)(4)(vi) are applicable to lignite-fired steam generating units that commenced construction or modification after December 22, 1976.

(e) Any facility subject to either subpart Da or KKKK of this part is not subject to this subpart.

[72 FR 32717, June 13, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 9447, Feb. 16, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1973–2014 · leading case: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) cadc · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. § 60.40 (a). Subpart Da covers EGUs of greater than 73 MW heat input capacity on which construction, modification, or reconstruction began after September 18, 1978.”

Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Adlene Harrison, Regional Administrator and Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator of Environmental Prot (1981) ca5 · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. §§ 60.40 -.46 (1977). Holding these performance standards were improperly applied to PPG’s waste heat boilers, which are fueled only partially by fossil fuels, we set aside the EPA action.”

Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Adlene Harrison, Regional Administrator, and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of Environmental P (1979) ca5 “15 (1977), while the regulations implementing the new source performance standards for fossil fuel-fired steam generators are located in Subpart D, 40 C.F.R. § 60.40 -.46 (1977). The standards of performance are written as emission limitations (in pounds per million British…”

Sierra Pacific Power Company and Idaho Power Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1981) ca9 “The regulations further explain that “facilities” include “[e]ach fossil-fuel-fired steam generating unit,” 40 C.F.R. § 60.40 (a)(1) (emphasis added), and define “unit” as a separate “furnace or boiler used in the process of burning fossil fuel .”

Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus (1973) cadc “Reviewing the coal-fired steam generator standards promulgated for particular matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.40 et seq., and subjecting them to the various tests and scopes of inquiry discussed above, we find that with but one exception the…”

United States v. City of Painesville (1977) ohnd “On November 24, 1975 EPA issued notice that Painesville was in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.40 and 60.43 because it intended to burn coal with a 3% sulfur content which would cause in excess of 4.”

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency (1981) ca4 · cites it 2× “§ 7607 (b)(1), for review of a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through one of its regional administrators, finding that the boiler at PEPCO’s Chalk Point Unit #-4 electric generating station is subject to the new source performance standard (NSPS), see 40…”

Northern Plains Resource Councill v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1981) ca9 · cites it 2× “As stated in 40 CFR § 60.40 (e) (1980), “[a]ny facility covered under Subpart Da [the 1978 NSPS regulations] is not covered under this Subpart [the 1971 NSPS regulations].”

Potomac Electric Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency (1981) ca4 “For example, in ruling on the request for exemption of United Illuminating Company, the EPA stated that the "pertinent issue is whether a binding agreement was entered into for the boiler, the 'affected facility' under 40 C.F.R. 60.40 and 60.41(a)." Letter from William H.”

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.