Carl E. McGowan

Name: National Asphalt Pavement Association v. Train — Opinion of the Court
Author: Carl E. McGowan

National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

Summary

“National Asphalt Pavement Association v. Train — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1976, is a work by Carl E. McGowan. It explores elements such as asphalt, significant contributor and standards of performance.

Quotes from National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (Carl E. McGowan)

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ We also find a fundamental flaw in the contention that once an industry complies with regulations designed to reduce air pollution to the level established by national primary and secondary air quality standards, it is no longer a "significant contributor" subject to new source regulation. Compliance with existing regulations may well enable the states to achieve the national standards, but it does not mean that the Administrator is precluded from exercising regulatory authority to prevent deterioration of clean areas. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ The Administrator concluded, and petitioners concede, that the best system of emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated for the asphalt concrete industry is represented by a venturi-scrubber with a twenty-inch pressure drop or a baghouse with an air-to-cloth ratio of six-to-one. Indeed, petitioner Warren Brothers informs us that those control technologies can be installed and operated at reasonable cost, and that various asphalt concrete companies are prepared to install those devices on plants that become subject to the final standards of performance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ It is proffered that the asphalt plants do not contribute significantly to air pollution, thereby causing or contributing to the endangerment of public health or welfare. The data upon which the Environmental [p781] Protection Agency has relied in making this determination of the significant contribution is based upon old data no longer applicable and the equipment which is presently available results in no significant endangerment of public health or welfare. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ Particulate matter poses enough of a threat to public health to warrant the promulgation of air quality standards - which are aimed at reducing existing levels of particulate matter - and we have no basis on this record to dispute the Administrator's decision that there is a need to prevent further deterioration of "clean air" by establishing additional national standards of performance for particulate matter.
Petitioners' primary attack on the Administrator's designation concerns his conclusion that the asphalt concrete industry contributes "significantly" to particulate matter pollution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ To achieve the overall objectives of the Act - reduction in existing levels of pollution and prevention of deterioration - the Administrator concluded that construction of new asphalt concrete plants will contribute enough additional particulate matter pollution to warrant regulation as a significant contributor. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ To the contrary, those cases suggest instead that "elucidation of certain types of issues, by their very nature, might require particular procedures, including cross-examination." NRDC v. USNRC, 547 F.2d 633, 644 (1976) . And we have indicated that "the presence of technical issues in and of itself [does not] create a need for cross-examination." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ EPA, supra,, 541 F.2d at 67 (Bazelon, C.J., concurring) , slip opinion at 4. "Our 'expertise' is not in setting standards for emission control, but in determining if the standards as set are the result of reasoned decision-making." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Carl E. McGowan, National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (1976)

“ Footnotes
↑ The Government contends that the judicial review provision of the Clean Air Act, supra, provides for review of final standards but not for review of the action of the Administrator designating a source category as a "significant contributor." Brief at 7. We disagree. ”

Carl E. McGowan

Summary

Quotes from National Asphalt Pavement Association v… (Carl E. McGowan)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature