Did The Epa Come Before The Clean Air Act
| |
| |
|---|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Congress designed the Clean Air Act to protect public wellness and welfare from dissimilar types of air pollution caused by a diverse array of pollution sources."[1] [ii] [3]
The human action requires the federal government to ready national air quality standards to reduce air pollution and states to implement the standards through individual plans subject area to approval by the EPA. National air quality standards and air pollution regulation are enforced primarily by state governments; states issue permits, monitor compliance, and comport facility inspections, while the EPA has say-so to review country actions. The act also requires regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution and limits on hazardous air pollutant emissions, among other provisions.[4] [five]
Background
In 1947, California became the first state to enact air pollution control legislation. The California Air Pollution Control Act (CAPCA), signed into law by Governor Earl Warren on June 10, 1947, "authorized the creation of Air Pollution Command districts out of every canton, with Los Angeles County, 1 of the nearly polluted areas in the nation, existence the largest."[half-dozen]
In 1955, Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), which allocated funds for federal research into air pollution. This was the first federal air pollution legislation in the U.s.. APCA, however, did not empower the federal government to take regulatory activeness in air pollution matters. It was not until the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963 that the federal government causeless any regulatory or enforcement authority over air quality concerns in the United states.[3]
In January 1955, in a special argument delivered to Congress recommending a public health program, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said the following:[vii]
| " | As a result of industrial growth and urban development, the atmosphere over some population centers may exist approaching the limit of its power to absorb air pollutants with safety to wellness. I am recommending an increased appropriation to the Public Wellness Service for studies seeking necessary scientific information and more effective methods of control.[8] | " |
| —President Dwight D. Eisenhower[vii] | ||
Legislative history
Run across bill: Make clean Air Act
| Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 | |
 | |
| The states Congress | |
| Total text: | Link |
| Legislative history | |
| Introduced: | September 14, 1989 (in the United States Senate) |
| House vote: | Passed without objection; May 23, 1990 |
| Senate vote: | 89-11; April three, 1990 |
| Briefing: | Oct 26, 1990 |
| Conference vote (House): | 401-25; October 26, 1990 |
| Conference vote (Senate): | 89-10; Oct 27, 1990 |
| President: | George H.W. Bush |
| Signed: | November 13, 1990 |
The Clean Air Act of 1963 established an air pollution control program within the U.S. Public Health Service. The Air Quality Act of 1967 farther expanded federal monitoring and regulatory say-so over air quality. In 1970, the United States Congress canonical major amendments to the CAA authorizing "the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from stationary (industrial) sources and mobile sources." The adoption of the 1970 CAA amendments coincided with the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Human action, which formed the U.S. Ecology Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA, in plow, assumed responsibility for implementing the provisions of the CAA. Further amendments were fabricated to the CAA in 1977 and 1990.[3]
The tabular array below summarizes congressional actions related to air pollution control.
| Make clean Air Act and amendments, 1955-2004 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Act | Citation |
| 1955 | Air Pollution Control Act | P.L. 84-159 |
| 1959 | Reauthorization | P.Fifty. 86-353 |
| 1960 | Motor vehicle exhaust report | P.L. 86-493 |
| 1963 | Clean Air Human activity | P.50. 88-206 |
| 1965 | Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Human action | P.50. 89-272, Title I |
| 1966 | Make clean Air Human action Amendments of 1966 | P.L. 89-675 |
| 1967 | Air Quality Act of 1967; National Air Emission Standards Act | P.L. 90-148 |
| 1970 | Clean Air Human action Amendments of 1970 | P.L. 91-604 |
| 1973 | Reauthorization | P.L. 93-13 |
| 1974 | Energy Supply and Ecology Coordination Human activity of 1974 | P.50. 93-319 |
| 1977 | Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 | P.L. 95-95 |
| 1980 | Acid Precipitation Act of 1980 | P.50. 96-294, Title 7 |
| 1981 | Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981 | P.L. 97-23 |
| 1987 | Clean Air Act 8-calendar month Extension | P.Fifty. 100-202 |
| 1990 | Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 | P.L. 101-549 |
| 1995-96 | Relatively pocket-sized laws amending the Act | P.L. 104-half dozen, 59, seventy, 260 |
| 1999 | Chemical Prophylactic Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Human activity | P.L. 106-40 |
| 2004 | Amendments to §209 re pocket-size engines | P.L. 108-199, Partitioning G, Title Iv, Section 428 |
| Source: Congressional Research Service, "Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Human activity and Its Major Requirements," updated May nine, 2005 | ||
Provisions
-
- See also: Implementation of the Clean Air Deed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
-
- See Also: Whitman v. American Trucking Associations
The Make clean Air Act established nationwide air quality standards for six air pollutants defined in the human activity equally criteria pollutants: basis-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. These standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), set ceilings for the 6 air pollutants, and states enact country implementation plans outlining enforceable, source-specific emissions limits for these pollutants. Each state plan must bear witness that the state will see and maintain the NAAQS. In setting NAAQS, the EPA is required nether the act to implement 2 standards for criteria pollutants—primary and secondary standards. Primary standards limit pollution to protect human health, and secondary standards limit pollution to protect confronting visibility impairment and impairment to animals, vegetation, and buildings. If a geographical area exceeds the NAAQS for one or more of the half-dozen criteria pollutants, the area is considered by the EPA as a nonattainment area. Geographical areas with pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are known equally attainment areas.[9] [10]
The table beneath summarizes NAAQS standards, which are the maximum allowable amounts in a given period. Units of measure include parts per million (ppm) by book, parts per billion (ppb) by book, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (ÎĽg/thousand3).[11]
| National Ambient Air Quality Standards (as of March 22, 2016) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollutant | Primary or secondary | Averaging time | Standard level | Form |
| Carbon monoxide | Primary | 8-hour | 9 ppm | Not to be exceeded more than in one case per twelvemonth |
| Carbon monoxide | Primary | 1-60 minutes | 35 ppm | Not to be exceeded more once per year |
| Atomic number 82 | Primary and secondary | Rolling 3-calendar month average | 0.xv ÎĽg/m3 | Not to be exceeded |
| Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) | Principal | 1-hour | 100ppb | 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum, averaged over 3 years |
| Nitrogen dioxide | Primary and secondary | Annual | 53 ppb | Annual hateful |
| Ozone (O3) | Chief and secondary | 8-hr | 0.070 ppm | Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-60 minutes concentration, averaged over 3 years |
| Particle pollution (PM2.five) | Primary | Annual | 12.0 ÎĽg/m3 | Almanac mean, averaged over 3 years |
| Particle pollution (PM2.5) | Secondary | Annual | 15.0 ÎĽg/mthree | Annual hateful, averaged over 3 years |
| Particle pollution (PM2.5) | Main and secondary | 24 hours | 35.0 ÎĽg/m3 | 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years |
| Particle pollution (PM10) | Primary and secondary | 24 hours | 150.0 ÎĽg/m3 | Not to be exceeded more than than one time per year on average over three years |
| Sulfur dioxide (SO2) | Primary | ane-hour | 75 ppb | 99th percentile of one-hr daily maximum concentrations, averaged over iii years |
| Sulfur dioxide (And so2) | Secondary | 3-hour | 0.5 ppm | Non to be exceeded more than once per year |
| Source: U.S. Ecology Protection Agency, "NAAQS tabular array," accessed May ten, 2016 | ||||
Electric current listings of nonattainment areas tin can be accessed here. The map below was prepared by the EPA and shows designated not-attainment areas in the United States as of Apr 22, 2016.[12] [13]
State implementation plans
States must adopt a state implementation program (SIP) designed to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These plans are reviewed and canonical by the EPA.[14]
Country implementation plans must include enforceable emissions limitations and other pollutant control measures to reach and maintain NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants. Other requirements for country plans include the post-obit:[14]
- A schedule or timetable for compliance with NAAQS and other Clean Air Act requirements
- A permit program for sources of air pollution
- Plans for air quality monitoring in the state
- Prohibitions confronting emissions that may significantly contribute to another geographical area'south disability to meet NAAQS
- Participation and consultations with local governments affected past a state plan
New Source Review Programme
Under the Clean Air Human activity, the New Source Review Program (NSR) applies to major stationary sources of air pollution, which are defined as sources with the potential to emit a certain amount of a pollutant regulated under the act. Before a major stationary source is constructed or an existing source is significantly modified, the facility must undergo an NSR analysis. The NSR assay requires a facility operator to review and analyze how the facility'south emissions may impact air quality. Operators must show that the facility will not breach NAAQS or emissions limits found in the facility's permit, which must be obtained before the construction or modification of a facility begins. Permits, which are enforceable legal documents, include requirements for constructing and operating units that produce emissions at a facility and the technology required to limit emissions, among other requirements.[14]
Emissions standards for mobile sources
The Clean Air Act requires emissions limits for mobile sources of air pollution, including on-highway vehicles (such as cars, trucks, and buses), aircraft, and certain equipment, such equally construction equipment, lawnmowers, portable generators, motorboats, forklifts, and others. In the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress set tighter standards (known as Tier I standards) limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides, benzene, carbon monoxide, and others from mobile sources. The amendments also required the EPA to examine whether farther emissions standards were needed based on available technology and the cost-effectiveness of meeting new standards. In 2000, the EPA set up farther standards (known as Tier II standards) to reduce emissions from cars and light trucks for 2004-2009 model yr vehicles. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 too required gasoline refiners to lower the sulfur content of gasoline to an average of xxx parts per million by October 1993.[15] [14]
Hazardous air pollutants
Every bit defined in the Clean Air Human action, chancy air pollutants "crusade or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating, reversible, illness." Hazardous air pollutants may cause serious health effects, such as cancer, birth defects, respiratory illness, and other maladies. Nether the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1977, the EPA set up emissions limits for seven hazardous pollutants—glucinium, mercury, vinyl chloride, asbestos, benzene, radionuclides, and arsenic.[14]
With the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress revised the EPA's hazardous air pollutant program to a applied science-based regulatory system. The EPA regulates major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions and require facilities to adopt technologies to command their emissions. Technologies used to reduce hazardous pollutants include scrubbers, filters, thermal oxidizers, and more than. The standards, known as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, are based on the maximum reduction of emissions achievable past new and existing sources of hazardous pollutants. The standards must besides take into account costs and any non-air wellness or environmental impacts.[14] [16]
Back up and opposition
Proponents of the Clean Air Act argue that it is primarily responsible for reduced air pollution since 1970. Other proponents debate that the act has required industries to develop new anti-pollution controls to reduce emissions, creating jobs in the procedure. Critics of the human activity'southward implementation, debate that the law has produced net economic benefits despite other bug involving the act. Opponents of the Clean Air Act fence that its implementation has burdened states and localities and that air pollution was already in turn down by the fourth dimension Congress passed the Make clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. The human activity's 1970 amendments survived a legal challenge in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001).
Support
- In an commodity titled The Make clean Air Act, the Marriage of Concerned Scientists, whose stated mission is to prefer "rigorous, contained science to piece of work to solve our planet'southward most pressing problems," argued that the Clean Air Human action from 1980 to 2016 resulted in a 25 percentage reduction in smog, reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 71 pct and 46 percentage, respectively, and reductions in lead emissions by 92 percent (due the act's requirement that refiners reduce the lead content of gasoline). Further, the article argued that the Make clean Air Act has led to boosted pollution reductions by requiring factories and other industries to implement new anti-pollution engineering to control emissions.[17] [18]
- In a November 2015 report titled Protecting Public Wellness and Growing the Economic system: 25 Years of the 1990 Clean Air Deed Amendments, the Center for American Progress, whose stated mission is "to amend the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well every bit potent leadership and concerted activeness," argued that the Clean Air Act has not inhibited economical growth or limited energy consumption. According to the study, "Fifty-fifty while population, vehicle miles, and gross domestic product, or GDP, accept all increased, emissions of harmful pollutants have decreased significantly over the same period. Emissions from lead, NOx [nitrous oxides], and SOx [sulfur oxides] have fallen past 80 percent, 51 percent, and 79 percent respectively."[19]
- In a March 2, 2011, mail service titled The Make clean Air Act: Expert for Our Health AND Our Economy, Susanne Brooks, director of U.Southward. Climate Policy & Analysis at the Environmental Defense Fund, whose stated mission is to "discover practical and lasting solutions to the nearly serious ecology issues," cited EPA-authored inquiry from March 2011 last that the Clean Air Act produced $ane.3 trillion in health and environmental benefits for a cost of approximately $fifty billion. The EPA study's authors argued that Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 would 230,000 premature deaths and produce $2 trillion in economical benefits in the year 2020. Brooks ended, "The Clean Air Act and its amendments forbid millions of premature deaths, significantly reduce illnesses, and save trillions of dollars for American families."[20] [21]
Opposition
- In a 2007 study entitled Air Quality in America from the American Enterprise Constitute, whose stated mission is "expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening costless enterprise," Joel M. Schwartz and Steven F. Hayward concluded that air pollution was already failing before Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1970 (based on local and regional sources of air pollution data). The authors cited the city of Pittsburgh, which reduced airborne particulate matter levels past 50 percent between the 1920s and 1940s and by l percent between the 1940s and 1970; Midwestern and Eastern industrial cities that "achieved big reductions in particulate levels during the early on and middle decades of the twentieth century"; monitoring data from the urban center of Los Angeles showing a steady decline in ground-level ozone (smog) that connected through the 1960s; and monitoring information from New York Urban center that showed a 58 percentage decrease in sulfur dioxide levels from 1963 and 1970 (when the first iteration of Clean Air Act Amendments were passed).[22]
- In testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and the Surroundings in March 2017, Nick Loris, the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Inquiry Swain at The Heritage Foundation, whose stated mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies," argued that environmental laws such equally the Clean Air Human activity are ill-equipped for dealing with ecology issues, producing high costs with little to no environmental benefit. "The EPA has used ever-expanding authority to implement stringent regulations with increasingly high compliance costs and diminishing marginal environmental returns," Loris said.[23]
- In a December 2016 report titled Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due, Reed Watson, the executive managing director of the Property and Environment Enquiry Center, whose stated mission is "to improving ecology quality through belongings rights and markets," argued that the local government ordinances and economical growth, rather than the Clean Air Act, led to reductions in air pollutants from 1970 to 2015. Watson further argued that air pollution had already begun declining between 1962 and 1970 (when major amendments were added to the Clean Air Act) and that air quality improvements slowed later the human action's passage because "federally mandated reductions often failed to account for local conditions, creating expensive and often ineffective 1-size-fits-none approaches to clearing the air."[24]
Other views
- Authors of a 2004 study entitled Air Quality Management in the United States and published past the National Research Council, a research organisation within the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine whose stated mission is "to improve government decision making and public policy," concluded that the Clean Air Human activity "will probably continue to have substantial net economic benefits." The written report'due south authors qualified its conclusion, arguing that the EPA's implementation was at times overly focused on process rather than results. Specifically, the report establish that the process states use come across National Ambient Air Quality Standards was "a legalistic, and often frustrating, proposal and review procedure, which focuses primarily on compliance with intermediate process steps." The report'south authors further argued that states were likely discouraged from innovating and experimenting with anti-pollution controls as a event. In improver, the authors ended that states and localities were overburdened given their limited human and fiscal resources to comply with federal procedures and that states and local governments may have drawn resources away from meeting federal air quality standards to coming together specific procedural requirements.[25] [26]
Recent news
The link below is to the most contempo stories in a Google news search for the terms Clean Air Act. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See besides
- Implementation of the Make clean Air Human action
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
- Air pollutants
- Hazardous air pollutant
Footnotes
- ↑ U.South. Ecology Protection Agency, "Make clean Air Act Requirements and History," accessed August 7, 2014
- ↑ U.South. Environmental Protection Agency, "Understanding the Clean Air Act," accessed August 7, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 iii.i 3.2 U.S. Ecology Protection Agency, "History of the Make clean Air Human activity," accessed August seven, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Clean Air Act," accessed February 2, 2016
- ↑ U.S. Ecology Protection Agency, "National Air Activity Dashboard," accessed Jan 15, 2016
- ↑ Rice University Environmental and Energy Systems Institute - Shell Centre for Sustainability, "Clean Air Act Implementation in Houston: An Historical Perspective 1970-2005," February 2005
- ↑ seven.0 7.ane The American Presidency Project, "Dwight D. Eisenhower - Special Message to Congress Recommending a Wellness Programme," January 31, 2005
- ↑ Annotation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ U.South. Senate Surround and Public Works Committee, "Clean Air Act - Full Text," accessed June eleven, 2017
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Applying or Implementing Ozone Standards," accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," accessed August 7, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau, "Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants," updated July 2, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau, "Counties Designated "Nonattainment" for Clean Air Human action's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," updated July ii, 2014
- ↑ xiv.0 14.ane fourteen.2 14.3 14.4 14.five Congressional Research Service, "Make clean Air Human activity: A Summary of the Human action and Its Major Requirements," updated May ix, 2005
- ↑ U.Due south. Ecology Protection Agency, "Basic Information," accessed Baronial 7, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau, "Reducing Toxic Air Pollutants," accessed August 7, 2014
- ↑ Union of Concerned Scientists, "The Clean Air Act," accessed September twenty, 2016
- ↑ Marriage of Concerned Scientists, "Founding Certificate: 1968 MIT Faculty Statement," accessed Oct 24, 2016
- ↑ Center for American Progress, "Protecting Public Health and Growing the Economy: 25 Years of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments," Nov 16, 2015
- ↑ Ecology Defense force Fund, "The Clean Air Act: Skilful for Our Health AND Our Economy," March ii, 2011
- ↑ U.South. Ecology Protection Agency, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Deed from 1990 to 2020," March 2011
- ↑ American Enterprise Institute, "Air Quality in America," accessed September 20, 2016
- ↑ U.S. House of Representatives - Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "Testimony of Nick Loris - Herbert & Joyce Morgan Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation," March 1, 2017
- ↑ Belongings and Environment Inquiry Center, "Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due," Dec xiv, 2016
- ↑ The Wall Street Periodical, "Why the Clean Air Act May Be By Its Prime," April 17, 2010
- ↑ National Academies Press, "Air Quality Management in the United states," accessed September 20, 2016
| Environmental Policy | ||
|---|---|---|
| Groundwork | Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Human action • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news |  |
| Free energy and environmental news | Jan 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 | |
| Environmental terms | Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing let • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross Country Air Pollution Dominion • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Ecology chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental wellness • Ecology restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Footing-level ozone standards • Basis h2o • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone Twoscore • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambience Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities Listing of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Ecology Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service • U.Due south. Forest Service • U.Southward. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • H2o quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Club • Current of air energy | |
| Endangered species terms | Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • List petition • Species recovery • Taking a species | |
| Environmental policy by country | Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • N Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Isle • Due south Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming | |
| Endangered species policy | Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Deed • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act | |
| Endangered species policy by state | Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New United mexican states • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • Southward Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • W Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming | |
| Ecology statistics | Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by country • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal state ownership by land • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions past state • Superfund sites in the United states of america • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report | |
| Endangered species statistics | Endangered species past country • Endangered animals past state • Endangered plants past state • Delisted species • Top xx federally funded species • Country conquering funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by land | |
| Ballotpedia | |
|---|---|
| Virtually | Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Task opportunities |
| Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy Communications: Megan Brownish • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski Contributors: Scott Rasmussen | |
| Editorial | Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Main • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan GarcĂa de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Postal service • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora |
Did The Epa Come Before The Clean Air Act,
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Clean_Air_Act
Posted by: stevensfrous1983.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Did The Epa Come Before The Clean Air Act"
Post a Comment