40 C.F.R. §52.21 - Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality

Cite as40 C.F.R. §52.21
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
205 cases
  • US v. Alabama Power Co., Case No. 2:01-cv-00152-VEH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • July 24, 2008
    ...EPA regulations provide that an increase in the total amount of emissions activates the modification provisions of the regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(3) WEPCO, 893 F.2d at 904-05 (emphasis in original). In WEPCO, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the EPA on two (2) key issues over wh......
  • South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Civil Action No. 01-702 (D. N.J. 4/19/2001)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 19, 2001
    ...above an earlier established baseline value as long as air concentrations stay below the standard." Montag Decl., Exh. C at 17; see also 40 C.F.R. §52.21. H. NJDEP Permitting 39. The NJDEP is responsible for regulating and monitoring the production of air, water, and ground pollutants by st......
  • Tennessee Valley Authority v. Whitman, No. 00-15936.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 24, 2003
    ...however, that "[a] physical change in the method of operation shall not include: ... Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement." 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a). 13. In 1977, Congress enacted the NSR program which required states to designate whether discrete areas meet the National Ambi......
  • Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. Epa, No. 02-658.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 21, 2004
    ...of air and fuel. Id., at 75. 7. Nothing in the Act or its implementing regulations mandates top-down analysis. See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3); 40 CFR § 52.21(j) (2002). EPA represents that permitting authorities "commonly" use top-down methodology. Brief for Respondents 8. Two generators already w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...tension when the exercise of federal power inhibits projects that are desired by a state government or its citizens. 6. 40 C.F.R. §§51.166, 52.21. 7. See generally Craig N. Oren, Prevention of Signiicant Deterioration: Control-Compell ing Versus Site-Shifting, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1988); Jero......
  • Specific Environmental Statutes
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Three
    • June 20, 2014
    ...Milling Facilities Under Clean Air Act Permitting Programs , http://www.epa.gov/ nsr/fs20060228.html (last visited May 29, 2013). 244. 40 C.F.R. §52.21(b)(12). 245. Id . at §51.165(a)(1)(xiiii). 246. New or modiied stationary sources must install “best adequately demonstrated technology.” T......
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration: A Scalpel, Not an Axe
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 48-4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...Stat. 685, 731-42. 14. 40 C.F.R. §51.166 (2016) (requirements for states in adopting the PSD program into their implementation plans); 40 C.F.R. §52.21 (2016) (al- 48 ELR 10288 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 4-2018 Copyright © 2018 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with pe......
  • United States v. DTE Energy Co.: A Flawed Decision With Implications for the Future Enforceability of New Source Review
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-6, June 2015
    • June 1, 2015
    ...a source to include all pollution-emitting devices within the same industrial grouping, commonly known as the “bubble” rule). 39. See 40 C.F.R. §52.21(b)(2)(iii). 40. See, e.g. , United States v. Ohio Edison Co., 276 F. Supp. 2d 829 , 33 ELR 20253 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (interpreting and explain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT