This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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to the public and it just looks like a mess with no core showing the main points of the act...also the act was repealed today...no mention of future or any benefits to the public or industry Bubba800 ( talk) 07:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC).....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
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?
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Consolidating requests and suggestions for specific language edits. Ado2102 ( talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
"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:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
This recently-added section begins with incoherent and inaccurate statements:
I recommend deleting this paragraph. Perhaps a re-write could explain this topic more clearly & accurately. Moreau1 ( talk) 02:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
McCarthy, James. "Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and its Major Requirements" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
I deleted all Talk on changes, as these are visible in the article history. Ado2102 ( talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)