The Importance Of Rule Revisions

In 2011 Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia and several other industry groups sued Environmental Protection Agency over a Cross state pollution rule, also known as the transport rule. For years, the Environmental Protection Agency had implemented rules to cut emissions dating back to 1998. They identified twenty-seven states which included Texas that were considered “upwind” states. They believed that these states significantly affected the quality air in “downwind” states. The lawyers for the state argued that the rule would hurt job

in Georgia (169.6 per 100,000) since 2007 but on the rise in Macon-Bibb County since 2010; the

the actual police data.The results showed that 93.3% of all drivers were violating trac laws, of which 17.5%

New York, Connecticut, and EPA along with the federal Clean Water Act are ensuring enforcement to see a healthier Sound. The provisions of the federal Clean Water Act provide a vehicle for ensuring that nitrogen reduction targets are legally enforceable. A section of the Act (303(d)) requires the identification of a Total Maximum Daily Load for pollutants that will result in the accomplishment of water quality standards. Once a Total Maximum Daily Load has been established, the act calls for reductions to be allocated to sources so that the

In my opinion, all pollution standards should be tightened but over a period of time. I agree totally that pollution is out of hand at the current time, however it is a problem that has built up for many years and can’t be solved all at once. I feel that it is somewhat unfair to those companies who depend on their current status. By implementing procedures and regulations that are to occur over a period of time, it allows many companies to adjust gradually. I also feel that this policy of carbon trading should be eliminated. Although it does generate income for industries that currently comply, it allows many others to evade responsibility. I also feel that such things as public transportation and carpooling should be stressed. It provides an alternative that will drastically

Please note that you do NOT have to convert these into percentages. You may leave them in a count format.

Legislation to Authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to Accept, as Part of a Settlement, Diesel Emission Reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects : Report (to Accompany S. 2146)." (2008): 1-4. UWSP Library Forward. Web. 01 Jan. 2012.

Which of these challenges would be the best way to challenge the regulation you selected and why?

The ozone should always stay in tact to protects the earth from UV radiation, which is harmful to humans (skin cancer) and also the earth (global warming). If allowed to build up indoors, VOCs often contribute to lightheadedness, headaches, allergies and more importantly has also scientifically proven harmful to asthma sufferers. As a matter of fact, according to Professor Roy Harrison, professor of environmental health at Birmingham University, there is a body of research on VOCs in the indoor environment which links them with those kinds of symptoms - headaches and not feeling so good (news.bbc.co.uk). After proven to have negative effects on the ozone layer as well as humans, the production of CFCs was shut down and in fact it’s banned in the US. Some scientists were not convinced by the act of banning CFCs in spite of all these evidences. “Given the large economic impact of a ban — it was estimated that industries relying on CFC production generated $8 billion in business and employed 200,000 people in 1974 — several scientists in the field advocated waiting a few years for science to make more progress on the issue before making any policy decisions.” (bio.sunyorange.edu)

In the article, Browner tries to convince the reader that it is the right thing for the United States to change or revise the ozone standard that was developed in the 1970s to apply to the 1990s. She backs up this claim by stating that: “Americans want clean air. They want their children protected. They want EPA to do its job--ensuring that the air they breathe is safe and healthy” (Browner, 1997, para. 7). I also agree that this is true. Even if we have to cut back on some of the luxuries we Americans feel entitled to, if it helps to improve the health of the overall health of the

one and a half million from 2005 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). Thirty-five percent of

The COGCC then voted to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals decision. The COGCC, through the Attorney General, filed a Petition for Certiorari wherein she argues that the Court’s decision prioritizes one policy at the expense of others and the holding would permit the COGCC to “disregard the Act’s directive to foster responsible oil and gas development and enact rules that would entirely prohibit oil and gas related activity unless it can occur with zero direct or cumulative environmental impact”. Furthermore, the ruling “creates an inflexible, mandatory prerequisite that must be satisfied before the Commission may take regulatory action and that it “does not indicate a balancing test but rather a condition that must be fulfilled”. The AG's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is attached.

Based on information currently available, the EPA believes the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) meets the NCP threshold criteria and provides the best balance of tradeoffs among the other alternatives with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria. EPA expects the Preferred Alternative to satisfy the following statutory requirements of CERCLA §121 (b): (1) be protective of human health and the environment; (2) comply with ARARs; (3) be cost-effective; and (4) utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Though Alternative 2 does not meet the statutory preference for treatment, this Proposed Plan explains why that preference

On August 31st, 2017, the Planning Department determined that the City of Los Angeles Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the State CEQA Guidelines designate the subject project as Categorically Exempt under Article III, Section 1 and Class 32, Case No. ENV-2017-1617-CE.

Agencies have to take certain steps before implementing or issuing a proposed rule. There is information