Talk:Clean Air Act (United States)

Untitled

This talk page has gotten very unwieldy and I have attempted to organize it and clean it up. The article appears to have gotten a lot of attention during class projects but has become very cluttered, and I will also be consolidating and cleaning it up. Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm no professor or scientist but this whole collaboration(the page as a whole) is a mess of stuff that a layman cant make head or tails of.... too much history... tell me what the act is.. lay it out in bullet points maybe date them as to when each was updated the you can put the history in underneath and all the scientific stuff.... the page is supposed to be informational to the public and it just looks like a mess with no core showing the main points of the act...also the act was repealed today...no mention of future or any benefits to the public or industry Bubba800 (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)..... just a view from a layman and I don't mean to be harsh but to figure out what the act is in legal terms is spread throughout this mess of history and scientific stuff makes it a real hard chore ....Wiki is known for being an easy reference as well as an in depth reference for those who need it...this page fails on the first objective

I have finished a major update to this page, which I hope is responsive to this critique.Ado2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Structure

Discussions about the structure of this article. What should it be called? What should it talk about? Are there any issues or problems, or suggestions?

Article Title

This article is about the United States Clean Air Act. Nobody, anywhere, calls it the Clean Air Act of 1963. That title is used only for initial 1963 version of the law. Therefore, I am proposing to (re?)name this article to "Clean Air Act (United States)"Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. This is generally consistent with the titling of other articles on environmental laws. Moreau1 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Infobox

The infobox currently contains legislative history primarily pertaining to the 1963 act (an artifact of earlier edits). However, the CAA does not really have a single enactment date - it is a codified statute that has gotten amended many times. So having the detailed committee information in the infobox only for the 1963 Act seems strange. It's also a kind of pointless infodump that doesn't add much to the overall understanding of the topic. So... delete? Change in some fashion? Any thoughts welcome Ado2102 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the legis history can appear overly detailed and esoteric when a major law has been amended many times. The infobox format is not a particularly useful method for handling this. Infoboxes, in general, should be a "quick read." For comparison purposes, the current infobox history for the Clean Water Act article shows only the details of the 1972 amendment, which is neither the first in the series, nor the most recent amendment. (And the 1972 amendment was not officially called the "Clean Water Act," to boot.) The 1972 version, however, is the most sweeping and significant amendment enacted so far. So one approach for the CAA article would be to pick the most significant amendment, on the theory that more readers might be interested in learning about that amendment's history. Perhaps the 1970 amendment is the most siginificant? But I defer to you & others on that. Moreau1 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Moreau1. There seem to be pros and cons for each approach. I have made an edit that prefers brevity. I removed the legislative history information entirely - although the infobox currently does not seem to hide the "Legislative History" title bar when that information is blank - and then made other minor edits for clarity and length. My thought is that if the vote information is important, the GovTrack or other website pages can be linked in the appropriate parts of the History section. If I ever tackle the CWA/FWPCA page, I may suggest the same thing. Not a perfect solution but better, I hope.Ado2102 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Sections

I am proposing to consolidate this article into three general sections: 1) a summary of the law as it currently exists, 2) history of the law, and 3) issues and topics related to the law. Currently, the history is scattered in multiple places and duplicated several times. I will be reducing that as much as possible. Currently, the issues sections are scattered and disorganized. I will try to clean them up also.Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization by Regulatory Program?

This is going to be a difficult project but I think it might be a good idea to reorganize all of Part 1 (summary of law as it currently exists) by the CFR (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/chapter-I/subchapter-C) (only the important ones) rather than the USC as it is currently. Ado2102 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have started this edit, tagged under construction. It will take some time. I hope to capture the most important developments in each program, and cite to the most significant federal register documents, without getting too deep into the weeds. Please feel free to contribute. Once I am done, I will probably propose deleting all of the by-title explanatory material. I am using a bullet list for readability. Ado2102 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have completed my revision.Ado2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Add chronology of bills' provisions?

It's a little hard to follow what happened, when. E.g., I came here to see when the "Clean Air Act" mandated the phase-out of leaded gasoline. I'm still not sure. Thanks! :-) Benefac (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

hopefully should be clearer now in the History section.Ado2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Law Box

The box giving the enactment information is somewhat poorly suited to this format, because the CAA has undergone several major revisions and is generally cited only by its U.S. Code section, not the 1963 public law/stats, because the 1963 version was heavily amended in 1970. So while it is not a perfect solution, I have included the initial law in the amendments list rather than the uspl/usstat top-line citation. I may also move or consolidate the 1963 legislative history. Ado2102 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Merges

Merged content from Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 to here. See Talk:Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965.Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Merged - RACT/BACT/LAER

Somebody has proposed merging the contents of Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate into this article.

DO IT:

I am for it. These terms are part of the language of this statute and their meanings are appropriate to discuss in this article. I suggest they be combined into a section called "control technology standards" or something of that nature. Please note I am currently expanding the Air quality law article to include a control technology determination section, and would use these as an example. Authority: I am an attorney practicing environmental law in the United States. Ado2102 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also I just noticed: there is no such thing as "lowest available control technology" in the U.S. CAA. There is LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate). That article also exists in stub form so I have added it to the merge proposal. I am currently considering deleting or redirecting the "LACT" article. Ado2102 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Done. Ado2102 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That was me. Thanks for starting discussion. I didn't expect this to be controversial but tagged to remind myself or anyone who might get to it before me. ~Kvng (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I merged these into State Implementation Plan. I don't have enough subject knowledge to merge into this article considering that the terms are not yet mentioned in this article. Merging State Implementation Plan here might be worth considering at some point. ~Kvng (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Merged - Regional Haze Rule

I have begun the process of consolidating topics that are now either listed in "see also" but are stubs, or are in stubby subsections in this article, and cleaning up the results. I am tracking associated merges here.Ado2102 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification or Meaning Comments

Consolidating requests and suggestions for specific language edits.Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Say what?

The header needs work. There was no EPA in 1963; it was founded in 1970. It'd probably be a good idea to merge the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act with this, since it had no teeth at all. Twang (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the EPA is to the present time; it doesn't imply that the EPA had that role from the beginning. I wouldn't merge the other article here, because it was a different act with a different name. That article however is wrong to say it was the first United States Clean Air Act unless it's changed to not be a proper name. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

this has been updatedAdo2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

language does not sound right

"No nonattainment area can be redesignated as an attainment area, and any area that contains a site for which air quality violates the national ambient air quality standards is designated as nonattainment." -- surely at some point it can be redesignated if it improves? anyway, removing as it add more confusion than the little it tells us about process. (later) Also removing the following rather impenetrable gobbledegook. I am sure it means something and is probably straight from the legislation, but if it is suppsed to be telling us something I do not know what that would be:

It is also stated that no state or political subdivision can adopt or attempt to enforce any standard respecting emissions of any air pollutant from any aircraft or engine unless it is identical to a standard applicable to an aircraft. Elinruby (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

updatedAdo2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Also "The law encourages prevention of regional air pollution and control programs." can be interpreted as the Clean Air Act would like to avoid air pollution control programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.155 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

words missing from sentence, or something

"It was originally enacted by Act of July 14, 1955, c. 360." No idea what c. 360 means in this context, need clarification as to which Act. From Title IV section.Elinruby (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"c. 360" means Chapter 360 of the Act of July 14, 1955; also called the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. Sometimes Congress gives the same law multiple names. Moreau1 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

fixedAdo2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What Does this Mean?

It came out of the General Provisions section: EPA developed regulations of a list of categorized sources that emitted any number of the 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as directed by the 1990 amendments. There are currently 174 categories with plans for the creation of emission standards. Both the new and current sources’ standards are based on “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT), which is defined as control technology being able to reduce the emission of HAPs as much as possible while taking into account the cost and other factors. Elinruby (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

hopefully clearer now.Ado2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

dn tag

guess I really mean clarification needed not diambiguation but I don't have time to look the syntax up. Surely all those pollutants come from more than one source? But surely the law doesn't list them all? Unclear. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with "Current State of Clean Air Act" section

This recently-added section begins with incoherent and inaccurate statements:

• "Since the Trump Administration, more proposals that the Clean Air Act is too strict and the severity of pollutants were over emphasize, and not appropriate." At the least, it's not grammatical, and probably too confusing to be a useful sentence.
• "When the 1970 Clean Air Act was signed into affect; administrators did not appropriately calculate the cost of industry." Ditto.
• "New designs and new technology had to be developed meanwhile production was slowed and continues to be slowed because of the previous Obama administration which reinforced regulations." Wha?
• "The new Trump administration is proposing to completely rule out mercury pollution..." Not true; not in reference cited. The cited NYT article is titled "E.P.A. to Reconsider Obama-Era Curbs on Mercury Emissions by Power Plants." That's a completely different statement than "completely rule out mercury pollution..."

I recommend deleting this paragraph. Perhaps a re-write could explain this topic more clearly & accurately. Moreau1 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph deleted per previous comment. Moreau1 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Dead link

McCarthy, James. "Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and its Major Requirements" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved 23 April 2012.

fixedAdo2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Specific Topics

Theory section

The theory section is not about clean air, or the clean air act. What is its relevance to the larger article?? It appears as a side issue in esoteric economics. Avram Primack (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree... this section doesn't belong here. Looks like something from a term paper. Moreau1 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this section per the above comments. The text may be appropriate for starting another article, but it would need more introduction, context, and references. Moreau1 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases

"Research suggests that the greenhouse gases described above tend to have an insulating effect in the atmosphere..." The IPCC report uses the words "almost certainly" and "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no place for "suggests". -Pgan002 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

EPA endangerment finding

Wikipedia has several somewhat circular references to the "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act, but nothing of substance. Here is an offical link on the topic. This material could perhaps be worked in by someone with a better knowledge of US environmental policy than me. In any case, I hear that the Trump administration plans to overthrow the provision, which means, among other things, that the EPA website will no longer provide coverage. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

California waiver

Nothing on the California waiver, which right now is one of the more controversial section since the Trump administration has suggested they want to revoke the waiver. 2606:6000:FECF:4100:349F:9515:8B68:8BBA (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

it's in the federalism discussionAdo2102 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk on Changes Made

I deleted all Talk on changes, as these are visible in the article history. Ado2102 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)