#WOTUS posting

[woolandcoffee]

Tsk. Not the people who spent the last 17 years howling for EPA to define WOTUS based on the Scalia opinion in Rapanos now horrified to learn that the Scalia opinion in Rapanos includes tributaries and seasonal waters. Don't you bitches read?

[seoulzie]

hii !! whats the update schedule for wotu?? gotta clear my schedule 🏃‍♀️💨

범규; whispers of the unsleeping update schedule!

07/26/24 — sleepless encounters 07/28/24 — a place of our own 07/30/24 — rekindling the stars 08/01/24 — phases of the moon, phases of us 08/03/24 — cosmic challenge 08/05/24 — beyond the horizon 08/07/24 — heart to heart 08/09/24 — tomorrow's sunrise

here you go, angel! the initial release is this friday & each chapter from that gets posted every two days (≧∇≦)

[omens-and-more]

I'm gonna be honest with you guys, but to me and lots of other people i know it is normal to interact with bands crew (I find miw crew quite interesting) some are models or do, for example, photography elsewhere. Miw wear makeup as well which if your interested in that the crew is good to follow. Also, if you're interested in mixing, you may follow people who mix. If you are interested in working for bands its good to follow crew. You have shevy marie who posts things like makeup (obviously she has other content) which she's worked for ink and works for bvb now. You have patrick gilchrist who has his own band but has previously worked for ink (maybe he still does I'm not sure) but both of these have a following. Davis had immortalist before and so did orie mcginness (not saying that orie got his fame from bo because he deserves all his credit and so do all the crew because theu have worked for this i am very aware orie isnt crew just thought i would bring him up though.he's amazing and many knew about him before i personally love what he did wotu spiritbox also people knew davis before bo too because he was a vocalist and a good one in my opinion). Matt did drums and even some vocal parts in a band that seems to be inactive now (I wish they would come back) so people could know him for that as well. I do just find matt to be an interesting person and all the things he does for bands he works for. Bryan ( who also makes carpets) and lana photograph other bands so there's nothing wrong with following them. Going back to Davis as well he makes flash which he is very good at. I do not find it weird at all to follow someone who is in a crew for a band because they all mostly do other things. It for sure can become weird like why are people sexualising them but why are people doing that to bands as well (I know bo might of said they don't care or whatever but it goes for all bands). I am someone who is going to be entering this industry for work so maybe that's why I don't find it weird but none of you have to agree with me on what I have to say and that's okay.

…

[tsmom1219]

Webinar: Great Lakes Freshwater Symposium: Protecting Wetlands Post Sackett Decision

Oct 3, 2023 noon CDTRegister here. Join water research colleagues from Canadian and U.S. universities by participating in a free, virtual, lunchtime Great Lakes Freshwater Symposium. Panelists will discuss the impact of the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on wetlands protections, scientific research, legal analysis and policy, including an update on the upcoming EPA WOTUS Rule…

[treeremovalpensacola]

EPA and Army amend WOTUS rule

If you're in the Pensacola area, then you have probably already experienced the need for having to remove a tree or stump or getting your tree's trimmed. The cost of tree removal varies depending on a few factors, such as: - The type of tree that needs to be removed - The size of the tree - The location of the tree - The condition of the tree Pensacola Tree Removal offers competitive pricing for our tree removal services. For a full list of services Tree removal services visit https://treeservicespensacola.com/tree-removal-pensacola/ for a fast, friendly and reliable quote that you can count on. This will help not only beautify your property but also is the safest way to do it. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (the agencies) announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the United States” to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. While EPA’s and Army’s 2023 rule defining “waters of the United States” was not directly before the Supreme Court’s Decision in Sackett v. EPA, issued on May 25, 2023, it made clear that certain aspects of the 2023 rule are invalid. The amendments issued are limited and change only parts of the 2023 rule that are invalid under the Sackett v. EPA decision. For example, the final rule removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army said the agencies issued this amendment to the 2023 rule to provide clarity and a path forward consistent with the ruling. With this action, the Army Corps of Engineers will resume issuing all jurisdictional determinations. Because the sole purpose of this rule is to amend specific provisions of the 2023 Rule that are invalid under Sackett, the rule will take effect immediately. According to the release, the agencies will work with state, tribal and local partners to safeguard waters in need of protection following the Sackett v. EPA decision and will continue to use all available tools to protect public health and provide clarity for stakeholders. The agencies will host a public webinar on Sept. 12, to provide updates on the definition of “waters of the United States.” For registration information, please visit EPA’s webpage for the amendments rule. The agencies also plan to host listening sessions this fall with coregulators and stakeholders to focus on identifying issues that may arise outside this limited rule to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” with the Sackett v. EPA decision. Learn more about this action on EPA’s “waters of the United States” website. The post EPA and Army amend WOTUS rule first appeared on Landscape Management.

[newswireml]

First hearing set for challenge to new WOTUS rule by major private landowners#hearing #set #challenge #WOTUS #rule #major #private #landowners

April 5 is the date of the first hearing for the many parties involved in a federal court challenge to a final rule posted this past December from EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers defining the d“waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Private landowners represented by several organizations filed a 42-page complaint on Jan. 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern…

[audreydoeskaren]

Abridged History of Qing Dynasty Han Women’s Fashion (Part 3: Late Kangxi & Yongzheng Eras)

Previous posts:

Late Ming & Shunzhi era

Kangxi era

As the 18th century progressed past the reign of Emperor Kangxi, Han women’s fashion experienced further shifts in trend. The last two decades of the Kangxi era and the subsequent reign of Emperor Yongzheng (1722-1735) formed one relatively distinct aesthetic continuity, which is why I consolidated them as one time period.

The “peony hair” pompadour hairstyle, which began to move toward the back of the head at the beginning of the century, was now smaller, lighter and more delicate instead of one solid mass. The drooping swallow tail at the back of the head was often omitted and began to fall out of fashion. The popularity of the headband mo’e persisted, now worn slightly higher than before to conceal the hairline at the front altogether.

In terms of clothing, the same garments popular at the end of the Kangxi era continued to be popular, including the robe with standing collar, mamian skirt and the pifeng jacket (both its sleeved and sleeveless variations). Sleeves of clothing became gradually narrower as the decades progressed. Cloud collars were occasionally worn as well. Pifeng of this era not only had decorative facings at the collar, but also at the cuffs. They were often closed by a single, large, circular clasp button. The sleeveless jackets with attached standing collars popular in the Kangxi era seemed to have been discarded in favor of jackets with an open front and parallel collar, which showed the layer underneath. Repetitive roundel patterns remained a common decorative layout for robes.

Painting from the renowned series 雍亲王美人图, estimated to be produced around the 1710s or 20s. You can see the large clasp button on the pifeng.

Early 18th century painting showing a fashionable Han woman and a man in stylized Han costume.

Painting showing a group of women musicians, ca. second quarter of the 18th century. We can see the transitional nature of this period, as the older style of peony hair with twin swallow tails is present on the woman with her back to us, and the others have a simpler hairstyle without swallow tails. We can also see examples of the cloud collar, the larger red collar worn by the woman to the far right (who also dons a robe with paddy field patterns), and the smaller gebin on the woman with her back to us. I like how this image shows a variety of clothing styles that were available at the time.

Painting dated to 1726. The circular or semi-circular motifs on the facing of the jacket worn by the lady to the left were a common decorative pattern for facings of this period.

Another painting from 雍亲王美人图, showing a new hairstyle with hair coiled and piled toward the front.

Early 18th century painting. The robe is translucent, hinting at a domestic setting.

Fashionable accessories of this period include gold bird-shaped hairpins, the mo’e headband from previous decades, flowers, various hairpins and the newly popularized 项圈 xiangquan, a stiff, round, gold necklace with a decorative piece at the center front. 

Screen from roughly the second quarter of the 18th century showing a group of women. The bird-shaped hairpin makes many appearances, as well as the mo’e. Two women are wearing the xiangquan.

For colder weather, the fur headpiece 卧兔 wotu or 昭君套 zhaojuntao was popularized. It resembled a length of fur worn around the head like a headband.

A wotu/zhaojuntao worn over a mo’e.

Painting from the series 燕寝怡情图册 showing a lady wearing wotu/zhaojuntao.

[deafeningmoonmusic]

Acetylacetone Market was valued at US$ 224 billion in 2017 and is expected to reach US$ 403 billion by the end of 2025

Acetylacetone is a colorless or light yellow transparent organic liquid under normal temperature. It exists in two tautomeric forms that interconvert rapidly and are treated as single compound in many applications. Acetylacetone is widely used in various industries such as chemical, pharmaceutical, and agrochemicals as synthesizer, intermediator, promoter, and desiccating and bridging agent.

Market Dynamics

Acetylacetone market is expected to exhibit significant growth over the forecast period, owing to increasing applications of acetylacetone in various end-use industries and growth of these industries. For instance, according to India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), pharmaceutical sector in India was valued at US$ 33 billion in 2017, which is expected to reach US$ 55 billion in 2020.

Market Outlook

Among region, Asia Pacific and North America are expected to exhibit increasing demand for acetylacetone during the forecast period, owing to growing chemical industry in these regions. Acetylacetone is used as a chemical intermediate in formulation and preparation of pesticides and herbicides such as mepanipyrim, mepanipyrim is projected to contribute higher demand for the acetylacetone over the forecast period. For instance, according to the India Brand Equity Foundation, in terms of value and production volume, Indian chemical industry is the third largest in Asia Pacific and sixth largest in the world, in terms of revenue generated annually. Indian chemical industry was valued at US$ 224 billion in 2017 and is expected to reach US$ 403 billion by the end of 2025.

Market Taxonomy

On the basis of product type, the global acetylacetone market is segmented into:

Enol

Keto

Others

On the basis of application, the global acetylacetone market is segmented into:

Agrochemicals

Biomolecules

Dyes & Pigments

Intermediate Chemicals

Pharmaceutical

Request Copy Of This Business Report: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/acetylacetone-market-2998

Major Keyplayers: Merck KGaA, Wacker, Weirong, XINAOTE, Daicel, BASF SE, Chiping Huahao Chemical, Fubore, Yuanji Chemical, Anhui Wotu Chemical, and others.

About Us:

Coherent Market Insights is a global market intelligence and consulting organization that provides syndicated research reports, customized research reports, and consulting services. We are known for our actionable insights and authentic reports in various domains including aerospace and defense, agriculture, food and beverages, automotive, chemicals and materials, and virtually all domains and an exhaustive list of sub-domains under the sun. We create value for clients through our highly reliable and accurate reports. We are also committed in playing a leading role in offering insights in various sectors post-COVID-19 and continue to deliver measurable, sustainable results for our clients.

Contact:

Coherent Market Insights 1001 4th Ave, #3200 Seattle, WA 98154, U.S. Email: sales@coherentmarketinsights.com United States of America: +1-206-701-6702 United Kingdom: +44-020-8133-4027 Japan: +050-5539-1737 India: +91-848-285-0837

[somya08]

Global Acetylacetone Market Research Report 2021 Professional Edition

The global Acetylacetone market was valued at 3339.64 Million USD in 2020 and will grow with a CAGR of 10.48% from 2020 to 2027, based on Researcher newly published report.

The prime objective of this report is to provide the insights on the post COVID-19 impact which will help market players in this field evaluate their business approaches. Also, this report covers market segmentation by major market verdors, types, applications/end users and geography(North America, East Asia, Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Africa, Oceania, South America).

Get the Complete Report & TOC @https://www.statsmarketresearch.com/global-acetylacetone-2021-547-6464490

Acetylacetone is an organic compound that exists in two tautomeric forms that interconvert rapidly and are treated as a single compound in most applications. Although the compound is formally named as the diketone form, pentane-2,4-dione, the enol form forms a substantial component of the material and is actually the favored form in many solvents. It is a colourless liquid that is a precursor to acetylacetonate (acac), a common bidentate ligand. It is also a building block for the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds.

By Market Verdors:

Daicel

Wacker

Anhui Wotu Chemical

Chiping Huahao Chemical

BASF SE

Yuanji Chemical

XINAOTE

Fubore

By Types:

Keto

Enol

Download FREE Sample of this Report @

https://www.statsmarketresearch.com/download-free-sample/6464490/global-acetylacetone-2021-547

By Applications:

Biomolecules

Agrochemicals

Pharmaceutical

Intermediate Chemicals

Dyes & Pigments

Key Indicators Analysed

Market Players & Competitor Analysis: The report covers the key players of the industry including Company Profile, Product Specifications, Production Capacity/Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin 2016-2027 & Sales with a thorough analysis of the market?s competitive landscape and detailed information on vendors and comprehensive details of factors that will challenge the growth of major market vendors.

Global and Regional Market Analysis: The report includes Global & Regional market status and outlook 2016-2027. Further the report provides break down details about each region & countries covered in the report. Identifying its sales, sales volume & revenue forecast. With detailed analysis by types and applications.

Market Trends: Market key trends which include Increased Competition and Continuous Innovations.

Opportunities and Drivers: Identifying the Growing Demands and New Technology

Porters Five Force Analysis: The report provides with the state of competition in industry depending on five basic forces: threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitute products or services, and existing industry rivalry.

Key Reasons to Purchase

To gain insightful analyses of the market and have comprehensive understanding of the global market and its commercial landscape.

Assess the production processes, major issues, and solutions to mitigate the development risk.

To understand the most affecting driving and restraining forces in the market and its impact in the global market.

Learn about the market strategies that are being adopted by leading respective organizations.

To understand the future outlook and prospects for the market.

Besides the standard structure reports, we also provide custom research according to specific requirements.

[woolandcoffee]

Well fuck.

It was nice having clean water these last fifty years I guess. RIP to a real one, pouring one out for the significant nexus test, she was nice while we had her.

[seoulzie]

hey, i was wondering if we’d have other fics while we wait for wotu’s update? just curious, please don’t overwork yourself !!

i do!! omg im so sorry for the wait today was supposed to be the release of wotu chapter 2 but tumblr is being a little shit rn (aka i cant format it properly)

i just posted a yj smut bc yall always eat that up kekeke consider it as my apology!

[sambilling]

The global Antifouling Paint for Boats market

Our recently published “Acetylacetone Market” Industry research report has detailed industry analysis and gives a competitive advantage to our clients by providing highly filtered Data through the market. This report will give the user self-confidence to take correct business decisions. This covers a detailed profile of market vendors Daicel, Wacker, Anhui Wotu Chemical and Chiping Huahao Chemical.

 The Final report will contain analysis of covid -19 Impact on this particular industry.

 The global Antifouling Paint for Boats market is expected to reach US$ XX Million by 2027, with a CAGR of XX% from 2020 to 2027, based on Research newly published report.

 Get a Sample PDF of the Report –https://www.reportmines.com/enquiry/request-sample/682938

 The prime objective of this report is to provide the insights on the post COVID-19 impact which will help market players in this field evaluate their business approaches. Also, this report covers market segmentation by major market vendors, types, applications/end users and geography(North America, East Asia, Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Africa, Oceania, South America).

 To Understand How Covid-19 Impact Is Covered in This Report –https://www.absolutereports.com/enquiry/request-covid19/682938

 The Global Acetylacetone Market By Market Vendors:

Daicel Wacker Anhui Wotu Chemical Chiping Huahao Chemical BASF SE Yuanji Chemical XINAOTE Fubore  

The Global Acetylacetone Market By Types:

Keto Enol  

The Global Acetylacetone Market By Applications:

Biomolecules Agrochemicals Pharmaceutical Intermediate Chemicals Dyes & Pigments Others  

Get a Sample Copy of the Acetylacetone Market Report

 The Global Acetylacetone Market : Key Indicators Analysed

Market Players & Competitor Analysis: The report covers the key players of the industry including Company Profile, Product Specifications, Production Capacity/Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin 2016-2027 & Sales with a thorough analysis of the market's competitive landscape and detailed information on vendors and comprehensive details of factors that will challenge the growth of major market vendors. Global and Regional Market Analysis: The report includes Global & Regional market status and outlook 2016-2027. Further the report provides break down details about each region & countries covered in the report. Identifying its sales, sales volume & revenue forecast. With detailed analysis by types and applications. Market Trends: Market key trends which include Increased Competition and Continuous Innovations. Opportunities and Drivers: Identifying the Growing Demands and New Technology Porters Five Force Analysis: The report provides with the state of competition in industry depending on five basic forces: threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitute products or services, and existing industry rivalry.  

 Inquire or Share Your Questions If Any Before the Purchasing This Report –https://www.reportmines.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/682938

 The Global Acetylacetone Market : Key Reasons to Purchase

To gain insightful analyses of the market and have comprehensive understanding of the global market and its commercial landscape. Assess the production processes, major issues, and solutions to mitigate the development risk. To understand the most affecting driving and restraining forces in the market and its impact in the global market. Learn about the market strategies that are being adopted by leading respective organizations. To understand the future outlook and prospects for the market. Besides the standard structure reports, we also provide custom research according to specific requirements.  

Purchase this Report (Price 2450 USD for a Single-User License) –https://www.reportmines.com/purchase/682938

 Detailed TOC of Acetylacetone Market Industry Trends, Status and Forecast to 2027:

 1 Report Overview

 1.1 Study Scope and Definition

 1.2 Research Methodology

 1.3 Key Market Segments

 1.4 Players Covered: Ranking by Acetylacetone Revenue

 1.5 Market Analysis by Type

 1.6 Market by Application

 1.7 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Impact Will Have a Severe Impact on Global Growth

 1.8 Study Objectives

 1.9 Years Considered

 2 Global Acetylacetone Market Trends and Growth Strategy

 2.1 Market Top Trends

 2.2 Market Drivers

 2.3 Market Challenges

 2.4 Porter's Five Forces Analysis

 2.5 Market Growth Strategy

 2.6 SWOT Analysis

 3 Global Acetylacetone Market Players Profiles

 3.1 Daicel

 3.2 Wacker

 3.3 Anhui Wotu Chemical

 3.4 Chiping Huahao Chemical

 3.5 BASF SE

 3.6 Yuanji Chemical

 3.7 XINAOTE

 3.8 Fubore

 4 Global Acetylacetone Market Competition by Market Players

 4.1 Global Acetylacetone Production Capacity Market Share by Market Players (2016-2021)

 4.2 Global Acetylacetone Revenue Market Share by Market Players (2016-2021)

 4.3 Global Acetylacetone Average Price by Market Players (2016-2021)

 …continued

 10 Global Acetylacetone Consumption by Application (2016-2027)

 10.1 Global Acetylacetone Historic Market Size by Application (2016-2021)

 10.2 Global Acetylacetone Forecasted Market Size by Application (2022-2027)

 11 Global Acetylacetone Manufacturing Cost Analysis

 11.1 Acetylacetone Key Raw Materials Analysis

 11.2 Proportion of Manufacturing Cost Structure

 11.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Acetylacetone

 12 Global Acetylacetone Marketing Channel, Distributors, Customers and Supply Chain

 12.1 Marketing Channel

 12.2 Acetylacetone Distributors List

 12.3 Acetylacetone Customers

 12.4 Acetylacetone Supply Chain Analysis

 13 Analyst’s Viewpoints/Conclusions

 14 Disclaimer

 Contact Us:

Name: Mahesh Patel

Phone: USA:+1 786 567 6126 / IN:+91 777 709 3097

Email: info@reportmines.com

[truck-fump]

Rollback Of <b>Trump</b> Environmental Regulations—WOTUS The Most Recent Target

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/rollback-of-trump-environmental-4276760/&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNGSkXOfV9Qw36dq8uN5GSSWYuULFQ

Rollback Of Trump Environmental Regulations—WOTUS The Most Recent Target

The Biden administration has targeted over 200 of Trump’s energy and environmental policies since taking office, with many to date having been either …

[khalilhumam]

The Trump administration’s major environmental deregulations

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/the-trump-administrations-major-environmental-deregulations/

The Trump administration’s major environmental deregulations

By Cayli Baker Over the last four years, the Trump administration has taken on a massive deregulatory effort. With the issuance of Executive Order 13771, the administration’s two-for-one rule, federal agencies were directed to eliminate two regulations for each new rule issued. Much of this effort has focused on scaling back previous Obama-era regulations and weakening agencies’ statutory authority. Notably, environmental regulation has proven a prominent and easy target, as many existing policies and regulations had never been enshrined into law. The Trump administration has replaced the Clean Power Plan, redefined critical terms under the Endangered Species Act, lifted oil and natural gas extraction bans, weakened the Coal Ash Rule, which regulates the disposal of toxic coal waste, and revised Mercury and Air Toxic Standards–just to name a few[1]. Over the past few months, various federal agencies have finalized major environmental deregulations marking the end of, in some cases, years-long processes. The rules vary in consequence, from walking back pesticide bans to encouraging fossil fuel extraction on federal lands, weakening emissions standards, and even countering previous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings. The Center on Regulation and Markets has been tracking these ongoing deregulations. A sampling of some of the most consequential environmental revisions and rescissions to date are listed below.

Clean Power Plan

Finalized in 2015, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was proposed by the Obama administration in June 2014 and intended to reduce electricity sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CPP established carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance rates for two subcategories of fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. CO2 is the most prevalent greenhouse gas pollutant, accounting for 82 percent of U.S. GHG emissions (using 2017 figures). At the time of the rule, the electricity sector was responsible for approximately 30 percent of the United States’ overall GHG emissions. EPA estimated that by 2030, CPP would reduce carbon pollution from the electricity sector 32 percent below 2005 levels. Likewise, sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants were predicted to drop by 90 percent and nitrogen oxides emissions by 72 percent. The reductions under CPP were expected to prevent an estimated 3,600 premature deaths each year. In March 2017, just two months after his inauguration, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing EPA to review the CPP.[2] In October that same year, EPA proposed to rescind the policy. While EPA worked to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the administration considered possible replacement policies in response to EPA’s 2009 endangerment findings that determined current GHG concentrations in the atmosphere posed a threat to public health and welfare. In August 2018, EPA proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as CPP’s replacement. Unlike CPP, ACE did not set GHG emission guidelines for states using emission performance rates. Instead, ACE defined the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for existing power plants as on-site, heat-rate efficiency improvements (HRI), whereas CPP determined BSERs to be CO2 emission performance rates. ACE used these BSERs to provide states with a list of “candidate technologies” to establish standards of performance by the states. EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis predicted that, relative to CPP, the replacement rule would increase CO2 emissions by over 60 million short tons by 2030.[3] In June 2019, EPA finalized three rules implementing ACE and its set emissions. The state of New York, along with 21 other states and seven cities, filed a lawsuit seeking a review of the action. The states claimed ACE does not meaningfully reduce GHG emissions, violating EPA’s duty to address carbon pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act.

Mercury and Air Toxic Standards

Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), coal- and oil-burning power plants are required to reduce the emission of mercury and other toxic pollutants, including arsenic, nickel, and acid gases. These plants are the foremost emitters of mercury in the U.S., and exposure to mercury has been linked to certain neurological disorders, cardiovascular harm, and weakened immune systems. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA must weigh the costs to industry, in addition to public health and environmental risks. In accordance with the Michigan v. EPA ruling, EPA published a cost finding the same year concluding that MATS were “appropriate and necessary” regulations for coal- and oil-based power plants under the Clean Air Act, a key finding that allowed for MATS regulation. On December 27, 2018, EPA proposed to revise its previous cost finding, altering the calculations used for costs to human health and safety. Under the new cost finding, the agency declared MATS no longer “appropriate and necessary,” although by the time the new finding was issued, power plants had already spent more than $18 billion in MATS compliance costs. The updated finding additionally deemed the residual risks of mercury and hazard air pollutant emissions acceptable, negating the Obama-administration’s original cost finding. EPA received substantive pushback on the revision for disregarding both economically important indirect health benefits and recent research identifying the direct health benefits from reduced emissions.[4] As such, several environmental groups brought forth a lawsuit challenging EPA’s dismissal of the 2012 standards. Recent studies also show that the benefits of reducing mercury are far greater than initially predicted, yet EPA continued to use science from the outdated 2011 regulatory analysis in its cost benefit analysis. EPA’s Science Advisory Board even urged the agency to consider further research on mercury’s impact before concluding its residual risks assessment. Despite these critiques, EPA relaxed the standards and formally withdrew the “appropriate and necessary” finding in April 2020, though some environmentalists speculated EPA would withdraw MATS entirely. EPA’s revision does not change the MATS requirements themselves. Instead, it undermines the ongoing implementation of those standards. The shift could set a precedent for future public health rules, making it more difficult for EPA to justify future environmental regulations.[5] By removing the “appropriate and necessary” finding, the agency minimizes its regulatory authority over hazardous air pollutants and limits the scope of the Clean Air Act, in addition to walking back previous EPA science. The action has been even been called an illegal misinterpretation of section 112 in line with the administrations’ larger goal of deconstructing the “administrative state.”

Waters of U.S. Rule

One of the Obama administration’s most controversial environmental regulations, the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, expanded the definition of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. The rule initially sought to clarify which waterways fell under federal jurisdiction. In 2015, the term was defined to include tributaries and bodies of water adjacent to federal waters, including wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes, and the rule makes it unlawful to pollute WOTUS without a permit. Beginning in 2017, the Trump administration sought to rescind these updates. In February of that year, President Trump issued Executive Order 13778, directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and potentially revise WOTUS. Subsequently, EPA delayed WOTUS’s implementation date in 2018 and later repealed the rule in September 2019, effectively reversing the Obama-era definitions. On April 22, 2020, EPA and the Department of Army finalized an updated rule that narrows the definition of WOTUS and significantly reduces the number of federally protected bodies of water. By extension, the rescission also narrows the scope of the Clean Water Act. The rule, effective June 22, 2020, identifies six protected categories of water: traditional navigable waters, tributaries, certain ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments, and adjacent wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters. The revised definition leaves several previously-protected waterways vulnerable to pollution. Specifically, wetlands separated from tributaries by land, dikes, or other features are not included in this definition. Moreover, ephemeral waters that only flow after rain events are also excluded from protection. According to an EPA slideshow obtained by EE News under the Freedom of Information Act, the updated definition excludes at least 18 percent of streams and 51 percent of wetlands nationwide from federal protection, many of which had been protected since the Reagan administration. Most recently, developers received a permit to mine titanium near Georgia’s Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, as the impacted wetlands are no longer protected under WOTUS. In response, several states and organizations have challenged the final rule.

Reversal of EPA’s chlorpyrifos ban

Chlorpyrifos, used commonly on corn, soybeans, broccoli and apples, is the most widely used pesticide in the U.S. However, it has been found to impair child brain development and damage adults’ cognitive function. As such, chlorpyrifos registrants voluntarily agreed to cancel almost all residential use of chlorpyrifos products in 2000. In November 2015, after a petition and subsequent legal action from the Natural Resource Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network of North America, EPA agreed to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances. In March 2017, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a controversial order rejecting the previous petition and effectively reversing the chlorpyrifos ban. The decision came just two days prior to EPA’s court-ordered deadline. More than three years later, in September of 2020, EPA issued three updated chlorpyrifos assessments: a draft ecological risk assessment, a revised human health risk assessment, and an updated drinking water assessment. The assessments invoked EPA’s newly-revised Scientific Transparency Rule—which requires EPA to only consider scientific studies with publicly available underlying data regardless of peer review or replication—to dismiss prior evidence of the pesticide’s health risks, stating that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unsolved.” However, the agency excluded several empirical studies cited in its previous decision-making. EPA also neglected to include various animal studies from 2017 and 2018 that conclusively found chlorpyrifos caused decreased learning, hyperactivity, and anxiety. California regulators used these in a state-wide reassessment to ban the pesticide, becoming only the second state after Hawaii to do so. Following the announcement, Corteva Agriscience, the country’s largest chlorpyrifos manufacturer, said it would no longer make or sell the pesticide. Additionally, attorneys claim that Columbia University researchers involved in a critical study were willing to show their data to agency officials but had not released the information publicly due to privacy concerns. EPA’s invocation of the Scientific Transparency Rule also makes the reversal unique, as many public health studies rely on participants sharing sensitive data protected under confidentiality agreements. The application of this rule to future regulatory science could create significant barriers for the types of studies that influence agency rulemaking. The decision on whether or not to renew chlorpyrifos’ registration will be made in 2022.

Methane emissions standards

On June 3, 2016, near the end of the Obama administration, EPA amended the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit methane emissions and volatile organic compounds from oil and gas wells.[6] A lesser-mentioned greenhouse gas, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and 60 percent of methane emissions come from just 5 percent of wells. Notably, the 2016 rule included several emitters not previously regulated under NSPS, including fracking wells. Industry firms quickly petitioned EPA to reconsider the rule, and in April 2017, after the change in administrations, the agency announced it would do so. By June of the same year, EPA announced a 90-day stay, and later proposed a two-year extension to delay the rule’s effective date. After several environmental groups challenged the stay, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA lacked the authority to halt implementation of the regulations. Following the challenge, EPA later proposed revisions to its NSPS provisions regarding methane leak testing and repairs in September of 2018. The following year, the agency proposed another rule rolling back subparts OOOO and OOOOa of NSPS. On August 13, 2020, EPA finalized its rescission of the 2012 and 2016 rules, revoking GHG and volatile organic compounds (VOC) standards. The rollback additionally removes all transmission and storage sources from regulation under the oil and natural gas segment of NSPS.  Much like the MATS rollback, the revised methane rule restricts EPA’s authority to regulate pollution control standards under the Clean Air Act. According to EPA’s own estimates, the rule is expected to forego 448,000 short tons in emissions reductions. The administration also notably lowered the social cost of methane to $55 per metric ton, significantly below the Obama-era estimate of $1,400. Such a reduction makes it easier for the administration to forgo future regulations, as they are more likely to fail the cost benefit requirements under E.O. 12866.

What’s next?

In the short term, the administration has been largely successful in weakening existing environmental regulations, although the long-term impact of these environmental rollbacks remains to be seen. Many of the Trump administration’s measures, environmental or otherwise, have failed to stand up in court, with the administration losing 83 percent of litigations. A recent analysis from the Brookings Institution suggests that the administration’s regulatory agenda has strayed from that of past Republican administrations, abandoning the “industry-friendly,” states-centric approach to regulation in lieu of a more chaotic approach.[7] Moreover, at no point has the outgoing administration shown signs of slowing its deregulation. Most recently, the Forest Service proposed a measure that would permit oil and natural gas leasing on 4.2 million acres of National Forest System lands, and EPA finalized various rules amending the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants and waste management practices for coal combustion residual facilities. In addition to their obvious environmental impacts, these measures will likely create lasting consequences for how future administrations can apply and enforce environmental legislation even if an incoming Biden administration would presumably act to reverse many of these deregulations.

[1] The rules identified in this article are by no means an exhaustive list of the administration’s environmental rollbacks. They serve as a curated sampling of some of the major changes to date. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University maintains a detailed tracker of climate-related deregulations. [2] On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to take the unprecedented step of staying the CPP, pending the exhaustion of the full appeals process for either side–in other words, signing off on the rule’s permissibility. [3] According to EPA’s minimum case scenario. [4] Aldy et al., “Deep flaws in mercury regulatory analysis,” 2020. [5] Similarly, EPA’s 2015 Steam Electric Power Generating (EPG) rule sets limits on toxic waste generated by power plants. Among all industries regulated under the Clean Water Act, steam electric power plants contribute the greatest amount of toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters. In 2019, EPA proposed revisions to the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for two categories of toxic waste generated from steam EPGs: flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater and bottom ash (BA) transport water. Key changes include amending the technology-basis for wastewater treatment, revising the voluntary incentives program for FGD wastewater, and adding subcategories for FGD and BA wastewater. [6] In July of 2020, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration’s other major methane rollback regarding waste management, stating that the Department of Interior (DoI) “ignored its statutory mandate under the Mineral Leasing Act, repeatedly failed to justify numerous reversals in policy positions previously taken, and failed to consider scientific findings and institutions relied upon by both prior Republican and Democratic administrations.” The DoI rollback was struck down in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming just last week. [7] McCoy, forthcoming.

[virginiaprelawland]

The Future of the Supreme Court: Potential Justice Barrett and Environmental Implications

By Katie O'Connell, Virginia Commonwealth University

October 2, 2020

With Judge Amy Coney Barrett tapped by President Trump, alongside the Republican-led Senate, to become the sixth Republican-nominated justice on the Supreme Court, environmental law experts, including Harvard Law professors and environmental law nonprofits, see her influence tipping the scale rightward on climate and energy policy. [1]

Jody Freeman, founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law commented that “[The court] was already heading in the direction of [being] much more skeptical of broad efforts to regulate new problems, to interpret statutes that may be older, to deal with new risks.” Legal experts agree with Freeman and expect Barrett to align with a narrow reading of statutory authority. [1]

Looking at her past records, though relatively bare on climate and environmental issues, these exports expect Barrett to join a conservative coalition on the court, streamlining future environmental rollbacks or making it difficult for regulation expansions. [1] Though it is hard to gauge how she will rule on environmental and energy issues, her experience on the 7th Circuit shows that she has propensity for originalism in constitutional interpretation. [2] Even if the other conservative justices on the court disagree on standings or statutory interpretations, Barrett’s addition would still create a right-leaning majority that brings a flexibility to form those coalitions on certain environmental discussions. [1]

In one case in 2018, Barrett signed on to a majority opinion that reversed a lower-court decision that no longer subjected a plot of wetlands in Illinois to protection under the Clean Water Act. [4] This relatively small case can anticipate her presence on the Supreme Court, giving corporations and industry more liberty above climate protections.

The anticipation of a conservative coalition on the Supreme Court leads critics to foresee new momentum for President Trump’s history of relaxing and repealing environmental standards — a conservative majority on the court would more likely accept his viewpoint in upcoming legal challenges. This majority could pit the Supreme Court against regulatory efforts to curb emissions and pollution, making it increasingly difficult for federal agencies like the EPA to aggressively push climate policy. [2] More broadly, this lasting Supreme Court majority will discourage environmental plaintiffs from bringing cases to court and future presidents’ attempts to achieve major environmental policy reform through executive action. [1]

Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity commented, “If you look at what Trump has done on NEPA regulations, ACE, WOTUS, they are doing rulemakings that don’t push the envelope, [they are] narrow interpretations of law that I think the court would actually be sympathetic to.” He also added, “If you think about majorities being coalitions like in any other body that votes, having more generally like-minded people on the court will increase coalition-forming opportunities to end up with anti-regulatory results.” Barrett’s record demonstrates that willingness for narrow interpretation, which can be applied to predictions of her likelihood to side in favor of industry interest on environmental laws. [3] This specifically suggests that she may choose to strip federal agencies of their power to protect the environment. [3]

Hartl ended with, “Her record is sparse, but what is there is certainly concerning.”

________________________________________________________________

[1] Hijazi, J., & Farah, N. H. “How a More Conservative Supreme Court Could Impact Environmental Laws”. Scientific American. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-more-conservative-supreme-court-could-impact-environmental-laws/

[2] Winters, Joseph. “Amy Coney Barrett’s environmental track record is sparse, but ‘concerning.’” Grist. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://grist.org/politics/amy-coney-barretts-environmental-track-record-is-sparse-but-concerning/

[3] Grandoni, Dino. “The Energy 202: How Amy Coney Barrett may make it harder for environmentalists to win in court.” The Washington Post. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/28/energy-202-how-amy-coney-barrett-may-make-it-harder-environmentalists-win-court/

[4] Gerstien, Josh. “How Amy Coney Barrett might rule.” Politico. Retrieved October, 01, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/how-amy-coney-barrett-might-rule-422055

[researchkraft19]

Sodium Hydride Market Industry Shares Report Analysis 2020-2027

Research Kraft has published the latest research report on the global Sodium Hydride market. The report helps in delivering key insights about the Sodium Hydride market and provides a competitive edge to the clients. The research study on the Sodium Hydride market includes all the detailed information on the current market situation supported by the historical records and also have analysis about the future market predictions. The report represents a 360 degree overview of the market and its key players.

Access PDF Sample Copy of the Report, Click here @ https://www.researchkraft.com/request-sample/1097182

The novel COVID-19 pandemic has put the world on a standstill, affecting major operations, leading to an industrial catastrophe. This report presented by Garner Insights contains a thorough analysis of the pre and post pandemic market scenarios. This report covers all the recent development and changes recorded during the COVID-19 outbreak.Understand the influence of COVID-19 on the Sodium Hydride Market Size with our analysts monitoring the situation across the globe.

The most significant players coated in global Sodium Hydride market report:

Albemarle, Anhui Wotu Chemical, ShanDong Guobang Pharmaceutical, Dalchem, Tianjin Dipper Fine Chemical, Hebei Keyu

Major Types of Sodium Hydride covered are:

Sodium Hydride 60%

Sodium Hydride 55%

Sodium Hydride 45%

Others

Major end-user applications for Sodium Hydride market:

Chemical Industry

Pharmaceutical Industry

Pesticide Industry

Global Sodium Hydride Market Regional Analysis:

North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico) Europe (Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Russia, Spain, etc.) Asia-Pacific (China, India, Japan, Southeast Asia, etc.) South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.) Middle East & Africa (South Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

Any query? Enquire Here For Discount (COVID-19 Impact Analysis Updated Sample): Click Here https://www.researchkraft.com/check-discount/1097182

Points Covered in The Report:

The major points considered in the Global Sodium Hydride Market report include the leading competitors operating in the global market.

The report also contains the company profiles of the players operating in the global market.

The manufacture, production, sales, future strategies, and the technological capabilities of the leading manufacturers are also included in the report.

The growth factors of the Global Sodium Hydride Market are explained in-depth, wherein the different end-users of the market are discussed precisely.

The report on the Global Sodium Hydride Market is a worthwhile source of information for every policymaker, investor, stakeholder, service provider, manufacturer, supplier, and player interested in purchasing this research document.

Access full Report Description, TOC, Table of Figure, Chart, etc. @https://www.researchkraft.com/send-an-enquiry/1097182

Contact Us:

Research Kraft

Phone: 888-213-4282

Email: sales@researchkraft.com