Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 608 (together with Section 609, which covers motor vehicles) of the Clean Air Act serves as the main form of occupational licensure for technicians in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) industry in the United States. [1]
The Significant New Alternatives Policy (also known as Section 612 of the Clean Air Act or SNAP, promulgated at 40 CFR part 82 Subpart G) is a program of the EPA to determine acceptable chemical substitutes, and establish which are prohibited or regulated by the EPA. [1]
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the EPA to establish standards "applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from…new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" (emphasis added). [3]
In the United States, the Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990 requires that used refrigerant be processed by a certified reclaimer, which must be licensed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the material must be recovered and delivered to the reclaimer by EPA-certified technicians. [1]
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) are air pollution standards issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The standards, authorized by the Clean Air Act, are for pollutants not covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that may cause an increase in fatalities or in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are pollution control standards issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The term is used in the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970 (CAA) to refer to air pollution emission standards, and in the Clean Water Act (CWA) referring to standards for water pollution discharges of industrial wastewater to surface waters.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon ...
The Court held that the use of the Corps of Engineers of the long-controversial "migratory bird rule," adopted by the Corps and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret the reach of its Section 404 authority over discharges into "isolated waters" (including isolated wetlands), exceeded the authority that was granted by that section. [2]