MACT I Alternative Overview Sample Clauses

MACT I Alternative Overview. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standards for major stationary sources. MACT I standards are technology-based emission limitations that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants, taking into consideration the cost, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. MACT I standards for pulp xxxxx are based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources, as provided in Section 112(d)(3). The MACT standards environmental and benefit analyses were partially supported by an emissions study conducted between January 1993 and April 1994 by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (“NCASI”) at sixteen chemical pulp xxxxx that included nine bleached kraft xxxxx, four unbleached kraft xxxxx, two sulfite xxxxx and one semi-chemical mill. Semi-chemical pulp mill results were published by NCASI in November 1994 (Technical Bulletin #683 - Mill Q Study). The NCASI study concluded that HAP emissions from pulp digestion, brownstock washing, spent liquor evaporation and papermaking totaled 1.96 lb HAP/air dried ton of pulp (ADTP) produced for Mill Q. Additional test data and surveys from EPA and industry were also used to support the environmental and benefit analysis for the MACT I standard. U.S. EPA promulgated the pulp and paper MACT I standard (also called the Subpart S NESHAP) on April 15, 1998. Semi-chemical pulping xxxxx were provided until April 16, 2001, to meet the emissions limits of the Subpart S NESHAP. Because of the promising nature of PCA’s research regarding the Alternative HAP Treatment Technology, WDNR provided PCA with an additional year in which to achieve compliance. Similarly, U.S. EPA agreed to take no enforcement action against the Facility for violations of 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.443(c) and (d) for a period of time in order to allow PCA the opportunity to negotiate this Agreement and secure a site-specific rule. The rule, as promulgated, requires the collection and treatment of low-volume, high concentration NCGs produced by pulp digesters, spent liquor evaporators and hotwell vents. The rule further requires that the control device used to reduce total HAP emissions from the collected NCGs be able to achieve one of the following three criteria: 1. A reduction of total HAP emissions by 98% by weight; 2. A reduction of the total HAP concentration at the ou...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to MACT I Alternative Overview

  • Please see the current Washtenaw Community College catalog for up-to-date program requirements Conditions & Requirements

  • Background and Narrative of Budget Reductions 2. Assumptions Used in the Deficit Reduction Plan: - EBF and Estimated New Tier Funding: - Equal Assessed Valuation and Tax Rates: - Employee Salaries and Benefits: - Short and Long Term Borrowing: - Educational Impact: - Other Assumptions: - Has the district considered shared services or outsourcing (Ex: Transportation, Insurance) If yes please explain:

  • Program Overview Microsoft extends to eligible partners the opportunity to participate in the Program referenced above subject to these Program Terms & Conditions (“Program Terms”). Each entity participating in the Program is hereinafter referred to as a “Participant.” Participation in the Program is voluntary. The Program is governed by the Program Terms, which incorporate by reference the Microsoft Partner Network Agreement (as in effect between Microsoft and Participant, the “MPN Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in these Program Terms have the meanings assigned to them in the MPN Agreement. These Program Terms are subject to local requirements and may vary by jurisdiction, and Participant retains sole discretion to set pricing for sales of applicable products.

  • How Do I Get More Information? This Notice summarizes the Action, the terms of the Settlements, and your rights and options in connection with the Settlements. More details are in the Settlement Agreements, which are available for your review at xxx.XxxxxxxxxXxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxx.xxx. The Settlement Website also has the Second Amended Complaint and other documents relating to the Settlements. You may also call toll-free 0-000-000-0000 or write the Claims Administrator at: Financial Aid Antitrust Settlements, c/o Claims Administrator, 0000 Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 0000, Xxxxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000. To: Settlement Class Member Email Address From: Claims Administrator Subject: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement – Xxxxx, et al. x. Xxxxx University, et al. Please visit xxx.XxxxxxxxxXxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxx.xxx for more information. • The Court has preliminarily approved proposed settlements (“Settlements”) with the following ten schools: Brown University, the University of Chicago, the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Trustees of Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University, Northwestern University, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx University, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University (collectively the “Settling Universities”). • The Court has also preliminarily approved a class of students who attended one or more of the Settling Universities during certain time periods. This is referred to as the “Settlement Class,” which is defined in more detail below.

  • Commercial Operation Date Testing and Modifications Prior to the Commercial Operation Date, the Connecting Transmission Owner shall test the Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities and System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades and Developer shall test the Large Generating Facility and the Developer Attachment Facilities to ensure their safe and reliable operation. Similar testing may be required after initial operation. Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner shall each make any modifications to its facilities that are found to be necessary as a result of such testing. Developer shall bear the cost of all such testing and modifications. Developer shall generate test energy at the Large Generating Facility only if it has arranged for the injection of such test energy in accordance with NYISO procedures.

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs. B. Participation on the SAC shall not serve as a basis for the evaluation of any teacher. C. A minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) teachers from each school shall serve on their school’s budget advisory committee formed for the purpose of making recommendations on the school’s general fund budget. Teacher members shall be elected by the faculty. Minutes from such meetings may be requested by the faculty and may be posted on the CTA bulletin board at the school by the Association Representative.

  • Potential Conflicts and Compliance With Mixed and Shared Funding Exemptive Order 7.1. The Board of Trustees of the Fund (the “Board”) will monitor the Fund for the existence of any material irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the Contract owners of all separate accounts investing in the Fund. An irreconcilable material conflict may arise for a variety of reasons, including: (a) an action by any state insurance regulatory authority; (b) a change in applicable federal or state insurance, tax, or securities laws or regulations, or a public ruling, private letter ruling, no-action or interpretative letter, or any similar action by insurance, tax, or securities regulatory authorities; (c) an administrative or judicial decision in any relevant proceeding; (d) the manner in which the investments of any Portfolio is being managed; (e) a difference in voting instructions given by variable annuity contract and variable life insurance contract owners or by contract owners of different Participating Insurance Companies; or (f) a decision by a Participating Insurance Company to disregard the voting instructions of Contract owners. The Board shall promptly inform the Company if it determines that an irreconcilable material conflict exists and the implications thereof. 7.2. The Company will report any potential or existing conflicts of which it is aware to the Board. The Company will assist the Board in carrying out its responsibilities under the Mixed and Shared Funding Exemptive Order, by providing the Board with all information reasonably necessary for the Board to consider any issues raised. This includes, but is not limited to, an obligation by the Company to inform the Board whenever Contract owner voting instructions are to be disregarded. Such responsibilities shall be carried out by the Company with a view only to the interests of its Contract owners. 7.3. If it is determined by a majority of the Board, or a majority of its directors who are not interested persons of the Fund, the Distributor, the Adviser or any subadviser to any of the Portfolios (the “Independent Directors”), that a material irreconcilable conflict exists, the Company and other Participating Insurance Companies shall, at their expense and to the extent reasonably practicable (as determined by a majority of the Independent Directors), take whatever steps are necessary to remedy or eliminate the irreconcilable material conflict, up to and including: (1) withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of the separate accounts from the Fund or any Portfolio and reinvesting such assets in a different investment medium, including (but not limited to) another Portfolio, or submitting the question whether such segregation should be implemented to a vote of all affected Contract owners and, as appropriate, segregating the assets of any appropriate group (i.e., annuity contract owners, life insurance contract owners, or variable contract owners of one or more Participating Insurance Companies) that votes in favor of such segregation, or offering to the affected contract owners the option of making such a change; and (2) establishing a new registered management investment company or managed separate account. The Company’s responsibility to take remedial action shall be carried out by the Company with a view only to the interests of Contract owners. 7.4. If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because of a decision by the Company to disregard Contract owner voting instructions and that decision represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote, the Company may be required, at the Fund’s election, to withdraw the Account’s investment in the Fund and terminate this Agreement; provided, however, that such withdrawal and termination shall be limited to the extent required by the foregoing material irreconcilable conflict as determined by a majority of the Independent Directors. Any such withdrawal and termination must take place within six (6) months after the Fund gives written notice that this provision is being implemented, and until the end of that six-month period the Adviser, the Distributor and the Fund shall continue to accept and implement orders by the Company for the purchase (and redemption) of shares of the Fund, subject to the terms of the Fund’s then-current prospectus. 7.5. If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because a particular state insurance regulator’s decision applicable to the Company conflicts with the majority of other state regulators, then the Company will withdraw the Account’s investment in the Fund and terminate this Agreement within six months after the Board informs the Company in writing that it has determined that such decision has created an irreconcilable material conflict; provided, however, that such withdrawal and termination shall be limited to the extent required by the foregoing material irreconcilable conflict as determined by a majority of the Independent Directors. Until the end of the foregoing six-month period, the Fund shall continue to accept and implement orders by the Company for the purchase (and redemption) of shares of the Fund, subject to the terms of the Fund’s then-current prospectus. 7.6. For purposes of Sections 7.3 through 7.5 of this Agreement, a majority of the Independent Directors shall determine whether any proposed action adequately remedies any irreconcilable material conflict, but in no event will the Fund be required to establish a new funding medium for the Contracts. The Company shall not be required by Section 7.3 to establish a new funding medium for the Contracts if an offer to do so has been declined by vote of a majority of Contract owners affected by the irreconcilable material conflict. In the event that the Board determines that any proposed action does not adequately remedy any irreconcilable material conflict, then the Company will withdraw the Account’s investment in the Fund and terminate this Agreement within six (6) months after the Board informs the Company in writing of the foregoing determination; provided, however, that such withdrawal and termination shall be limited to the extent required by any such material irreconcilable conflict as determined by a majority of the Independent Directors. 7.7. If and to the extent that Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) are amended, or Rule 6e-3 is adopted, to provide exemptive relief from any provision of the 1940 Act or the rules promulgated thereunder with respect to mixed or shared funding (as defined in the Mixed and Shared Funding Exemptive Order) on terms and conditions materially different from those contained in the Mixed and Shared Funding Exemptive Order, then (a) the Fund and/or the Participating Insurance Companies, as appropriate, shall take such steps as may be necessary to comply with Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T), as amended, and Rule 6e-3, as adopted, to the extent such rules are applicable: and (b) Sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 of this Agreement shall continue in effect only to the extent that terms and conditions substantially identical to such Sections are contained in such Rule(s) as so amended or adopted.

  • DNS name server availability Refers to the ability of a public-­‐DNS registered “IP address” of a particular name server listed as authoritative for a domain name, to answer DNS queries from an Internet user. All the public DNS-­‐registered “IP address” of all name servers of the domain name being monitored shall be tested individually. If 51% or more of the DNS testing probes get undefined/unanswered results from “DNS tests” to a name server “IP address” during a given time, the name server “IP address” will be considered unavailable.

  • Post-Commercial Operation Date Testing and Modifications Each Party shall at its own expense perform routine inspection and testing of its facilities and equipment in accordance with Good Utility Practice as may be necessary to ensure the continued interconnection of the Large Generating Facility with the Participating TO’s Transmission System in a safe and reliable manner. Each Party shall have the right, upon advance written notice, to require reasonable additional testing of the other Party’s facilities, at the requesting Party’s expense, as may be in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • Reportable Events Involving the Xxxxx Law Notwithstanding the reporting requirements outlined above, any Reportable Event that involves solely a probable violation of section 1877 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn (the Xxxxx Law) should be submitted by Practitioner to CMS through the self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP), with a copy to the OIG. If Practitioner identifies a probable violation of the Xxxxx Law and repays the applicable Overpayment directly to the CMS contractor, then Practitioner is not required by this Section III.G to submit the Reportable Event to CMS through the SRDP.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!