翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Alaska Common Law School ・ Alaska Communications ・ Alaska Communications System ・ Alaska Conservation Foundation ・ Alaska Conservation Society ・ Alaska Cooperative Extension Service ・ Alaska Court of Appeals ・ Alaska Current ・ Alaska Day ・ Alaska Defense Command ・ Alaska Democratic caucuses, 2008 ・ Alaska Democratic Party ・ Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development ・ Alaska Department of Corrections ・ Alaska Department of Education & Early Development ・ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA ・ Alaska Department of Fish and Game ・ Alaska Department of Health and Social Services ・ Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development ・ Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs ・ Alaska Department of Natural Resources ・ Alaska Department of Public Safety ・ Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities ・ Alaska Dispatch ・ Alaska Dispatch News ・ Alaska Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management ・ Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice ・ Alaska Educational Radio System ・ Alaska elections, 2010 ・ Alaska elections, 2012 Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA ： ウィキペディア英語版 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004),〔( 540 U.S. 461 (2004) )〕 is a U.S. Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of state environmental regulators as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the Clean Air Act that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution. ==Background== The Clean Air Act requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.〔42 U.S.C. § 7470(1)〕 The Act prohibits construction of major air polluting facilities not equipped with "the best available control technology" (BACT).〔42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4)〕 In 1998, Teck Cominco Alaska, requested a permit to build an additional generator and modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction. In May 1999, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued the permit, and a technical report, which concluding that "Low NOx" technology was BACT and identifying "selective catalytic reduction" (SCR) as the best control technology. The EPA opposed the permit, objected that ADEC had identified SCR as the best control technology, but failed to require it as BACT. ADEC issued a second report reinforcing the original findings, but conceded the lack of cost data from Teck Cominco made it impossible to evaluate the impact of SCR on the mine's profitability. EPA issued orders to ADEC under §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the act, prohibiting ADEC from issuing permits to Teck Cominco without documenting why SCR was not BACT. ADEC appealed the EPA's orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the EPA did not have the right to interfere with the state agency's decision. The Ninth Circuit sided with EPA, and ADEC appealed. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.