Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Download as PDF; Printable version; ... Section 608 (together with Section 609, ... In addition to covering EPA (in particular, Section 608) ...
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]
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]
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.
In 2010, the EPA introduced a new set of regulations designed to control carbon dioxide emissions from light and heavy vehicles as well as generators and industrial and utility sources. A coalition of power companies challenged the legality of the regulations by arguing that the science used by the EPA in deciding the regulations was inaccurate ...
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context.