[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-567857-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-567857-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","weekly-report-on-environmental-pollution-the-law-the-markets-the-technology-vol12-no34-issue-34","weekly report on environmental pollution:the law,the markets,the technology - Vol.12 No.34 - Issue 34","","Weekly report on environmental pollution covering legislative actions, regulatory developments, and market-technology dynamics as of August 26, 1974. Includes a policy-focused editorial segment (“Slants & Trends”) discussing congressional funding decisions, Ford Administration coordination, and environmental safeguards alongside inflation and energy supply pressures. Features detailed case and regulatory updates, notably Sierra Club opposition to proposed significant deterioration rules for air quality, allegations of EPA noncompliance with court orders, and critiques of permitting delays and limited pollutant coverage.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/weekly-report-on-environmental-pollution-the-law-the-markets-the-technology-vol12-no34-issue-34/567857/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/weekly-report-on-environmental-pollution-the-law-the-markets-the-technology-vol12-no34-issue-34/567857.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ivy","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-10-13",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the Sierra Club’s core objection to the proposed EPA air-quality deterioration rules?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The Sierra Club argues the final regulations, if consistent with the proposals, would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and a court order and would reflect deliberate defiance of the law.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why does the report emphasize alleged EPA delays in issuing final rules?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It states that EPA delayed final rules and, even after the time taken, the proposed regulations do not comply with the district court’s opinion or order.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"How does the report describe the impact of the EPA’s extended deadlines?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It says the extended deadline allows an additional three years of air-quality deterioration by permitting sources under construction or with contracts to cause degradation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},567857,1791928139,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},549758252649,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/8000253669c5317157?_k=1778319167496531819","# includingair and water news\n\nPublisher:LEONARD A.EISERER  \n# weekly report on environmental pollution:the law,the markets,the technology\n\nVol.12 No.34  \nAugust 26,1974  \n\n| *Sierra Club Opposes Proposed Significant Deterioration Regulations·        Page 332  \u003Cbr>*Union Electric Co.Sues EPA on Sulfur Dioxide Rules             …Page 333  \u003Cbr>*EPA Issues Tentative List of Substances Designated as Hazardous         -Page 333  \u003Cbr>*Senate Interior Committee Approves OCS Drilling Legislation·          Page 334  \u003Cbr>*Commerce Department Reports Pollution Control Investment of S5-Billion in '73·Page 335  \u003Cbr>*EPA Proposes Effluent Guidelines for Glass,Meat Industries·…         Page 336  \u003Cbr>*Appeals Court Tells Reserve Mining,Minnesota to Agree on Disposal Site………Page 337   |\n| --- |\n\nSLANTS &TRENDS  \nCONTENDING THAT BILL APPROPRIATING FUNDS for agriculture,environmental andconsumer programs would permit spending higher than in former years primarily because itreleases funds previously impounded,Rep.Jamie Whitten(D.-Miss.),head of the appropria-tions subcommittee which originated the measure,nevertheless agreed last week to returnthe bill to committee for reconsideration.The veto message had cited as particularly infla-tionary,the $345-million for rural water and sewer programs and $175-million for lakecleanup,Whitten said.Yet of those amounts,he noted,$120-million for water and sewerlines was a carry over from fiscal 1974 and $100-million for Great Lakes cleanup had beenimpounded for the last three vears.  \nRETURN OF THE BILL TO COMMITTEE is another sign of Congress'willingness to ac-commodate the new Ford Administration in its economic battle,and was cited by Whittenas a demonstration of a spirit of cooperation and genuine desire to take action to impedeinflation.However,he added,reevaluation of the bill “will be influenced by our strong con-viction that adequate funds need to be available for the conservation of our land and waterresources,\"for the protection of the environment and for the assurance of adequate foodsupplies and consumer protection.  \nINTERFERENCE IN POLICY DECISIONS BY Office of Management and Budget may soonbe a problem of the past if suggestion by team of advisors on Presidential staff organizationis followed by President Ford.Suggestion that OMB be returned to its former role as a for-mulator of the budget rather than of domestic policy was received favorably by the Presi-dent as a means of putting \"more power back into the departments and agencies,\"accord-ing to Interior Secretary Rogers C.B.Morton,one of the team members.  \nGENERAL SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT FORD’S VIEW that environmental controls mayhave to be compromised to ensure adequate energy supply and to ease inflationary pressures(A/WPR,Aug.19,1974,p.321)came from American Bar Association during its meeting inHonolulu last week.Resolutions on natural resources adopted at final business session op:posed strict regulation of industry in the interests of the environment or consumers.ABA al-so specifically called for “temporary relaxation”by EPA of timetables requiring industry tohalt pollution based on “the economic,environmental and fuel availability facts of eachcase.”Also urged was guarantee that plants installing air pollution equipment not be sub-jected to stricter standards for at least 10 years.  \nEditor:ERIC B.EASTON  \n*谢  \nAugust 26,1974      \n## SIERRA CLUB OPPOSES PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION RULES\n\nPredicting success should further legal action be required,Sierra Club Aug.19 announced that if finalEnvironmental Protection Agency regulations restricting degradation of air quality in clean air regions areessentially the same as those proposed Aug.16(A/WPR,Aug.19,1974,p.323),it“will ask the court todetermine that they are inconsistent both with the Clean Air Act and the court order.\"  \nEPA has been attempting to evade setting final standards and only issued the second set of proposalsbecause plaintiffs went to court several weeks ago to obtai","cbCaiaWCsPH9y0UC","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaWCsPH9y0UC","pdf",3482432,11,"English","# SLANTS & TRENDS\n## Congress and administration funding approach\n## OMB policy decision influence\n## ABA positions on environmental controls\n# SIERRA CLUB OPPOSES PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION RULES\n## Alleged inconsistency with Clean Air Act and court order\n## Delays, coverage limits, and pollutant scope\n# EPA Action Is Permitting Three Additional Years of Air Degradation\n## Technology and timing concerns","[{\"question\":\"What is the Sierra Club’s core objection to the proposed EPA air-quality deterioration rules?\",\"answer\":\"The Sierra Club argues the final regulations, if consistent with the proposals, would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and a court order and would reflect deliberate defiance of the law.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the report emphasize alleged EPA delays in issuing final rules?\",\"answer\":\"It states that EPA delayed final rules and, even after the time taken, the proposed regulations do not comply with the district court’s opinion or order.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the report describe the impact of the EPA’s extended deadlines?\",\"answer\":\"It says the extended deadline allows an additional three years of air-quality deterioration by permitting sources under construction or with contracts to cause degradation.\"}]","weekly report on environmental pollution:the law,the markets,the technology - Vol.12 No.34 - Issue 34 | PDF",1791868256,28]