Sentences with phrase «air act regulatory»

Although Senator Lisa Murkowski's (R - Alaska) resolution was defeated in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D - West Virginia) proposal of a two - year delay of Clean Air Act regulatory action is still pending; and depending upon the outcome of the November elections, there may be a series of further Congressional actions to tie the hands of EPA in this regard.

Provide a price signal strong enough to reduce the need for future regulation of carbon emissions while preserving the EPA's present Clean Air Act regulatory authority.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

Even as regulatory measures were put in place — the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act — epidemiologists hurried to analyze the risks.

The only time Congress directly spoke to the issue of global warming in the Clean Air Act, it instructed EPA not to jump to regulatory conclusions.

Assessments are a critical part of the decision - making process for chemical management regulatory programs (e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act) and environmental regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act).

Since 2013, the subcommittee has orchestrated several successes and positive outcomes, some of which include: • Collaborating with the PIJAC Zoonosis committee to update the Healthy Herp Handling poster promoting healthy reptile and amphibian handling practices; develop the Zoonotic Disease Prevention Series for Retailers; draft informative store signage on how to prevent zoonotic diseases; participate in meetings on rodent and reptile disease transmission with the Centers for Disease Control; and produce and revise best management practices (BMP) documents; • Collaborating with the United States Association of Reptile Keepers on past and current attempts to pass legislation, ordinances, and regulatory activity that may impact herp ownership and related businesses; • Attending Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meetings with reports and summary of actions affecting import and export of reptiles; • Addressing the 2013 Center for Biological Diversity petition to list 53 herp species under the Endangered Species Act; • Reviewing and commenting on the recent US Fish and Wildlife status review on the proposal to list wood turtles under the Endangered Species Act; • Submitting comments on proposed listing of flat - tailed tortoise and spider tortoise under the Endangered Species Act; • Introducing federal legislation in 2013 to allow for the export of certain constrictors listed as injurious in air shipments with aircraft that land in a state for refueling; • Providing volunteer support for auctions at 2013 National Reptile Breeders Expo and several North American Reptile Breeders Conferences; • Providing extensive consultation on constrictor caging standards in Ohio.

Rather, the real choice is between regulatory chaos and legislation that fixes the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act so that pro-Kyoto litigation groups can not use those statutes for a purpose that Congress never intended — to dictate climate and energy policy for the nation.

Secondly, the other thing that you have is a regulatory train wreck with many different laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

... [T] he other thing that you have is a regulatory train wreck with many different laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

We understand that you have become aware of the regulatory nightmare that will almost certainly ensue from any one of several litigation strategies involving the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

By applying the Clean Air Act, the next president can stand on the shoulders of legal and regulatory precedent.

As EPA's plan to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants — the «Clean Power Plan» or «CPP» — gets closer to being finalized, we've been hearing a lot of talk about how Congress should rein in EPA, by either specifically stopping the CPP or revoking EPA's CO2 regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

The official title was introduced is «a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.&raqAir Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.&raqair pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.»

If Congress were to not only eliminate EPA's regulatory authority, but take CO2 completely out of the Clean Air Act, it would still be up to the courts to decide whether or not that would eliminate state authority over vehicle tailpipe emissions.

On the industrial side, the Clean Air Act demonstrates that regulatory policies can reduce pollution without any compelling evidence for the kinds of economic trauma sometimes anticipated.

Two of the main problems with its Federal Government regulatory approach to reducing CO2 is that it in effect requires rewriting the US Clean Air Act to do something that it was clearly never intended to do and will triple or quadruple electricity rates.

The report, Assessing the Impact of Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States, estimates the economic impacts associated with an EPA regulatory regime imposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and based on the Obama Administration's emissions reduction goals.

Keith McCoy, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his organization was «strongly opposed to an E.P.A. regulatory process for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.»

It beggars belief that the superfluous instruction to remove these six characters when the entire reference «112 (b)(1)(A)» had already been removed by a substantive amendment with real force and purpose could cloud the meaning of the Clean Air Act, let alone form the basis for a massive regulatory undertaking seeking to utterly transform the nation's energy system.

But he added that as a plan B, the president is setting up a regulatory system that will allow the US to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act.

And it is possible that pending Federal regulatory action under the Clean Air Act will be curtailed or significantly delayed either by the new Congress or by litigation.

What I am referring to is that costly Clean Air Act regulation of CO2 will play into the hands of right - wing opponents of climate action, creating a poster - child of excessive regulatory intervention that will bring about a backlash against sensible climate policies.

That emailed version said greenhouse gases could indeed endanger human health and welfare — a finding that would trigger a regulatory rescue (a regulatory train wreck, said the White House) by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

Assuming that Congress continues to do nothing on climate, that $ 655 billion floor for regulatory justification (and the totally unknown ceiling) will prove significant when at some point a hypothetical second Clinton Administration — which promises to be serious about climate in a way that the Obama Administration apparently has not been — resorts to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

It is true that global warming alarmists are filing multiple lawsuits to use the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act to cause a regulatory trainwreck...

From its conception, the Clean Power Plan (which became the global warming regulatory bit of the Clean Air Act) has been controversial due to its aggressiveness in (supposedly) reducing greenhouse gases.

The institute said that the E.P.A., invoking the Clean Air Act, and the Department of Transportation, using its regulatory power over fuel efficiency, could make major strides over the next decade in reducing carbon dioxide pollution.

Broad delegations of regulatory power (such as those found in many sections of the Clean Air Act) allow for few checks and balances on agency power.

«Any one of the several new or likely regulatory initiatives for CO2 emissions from power plants — including state carbon controls, E.P.A.'s regulations under the Clean Air Act, or the enactment of federal global warming legislation — would add a significant cost to carbon - intensive coal generation,» the letters said... Selective disclosure of favorable information or omission of unfavorable information concerning climate change is misleading.

Lastly, what would have represented the most recent, comprehensive regulatory scheme for addressing carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants and thus a key component of US energy policy, the Clean Power Plan developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the Clean Air Act, was mired down by legal challenges under the Obama Administration and has been completely abandoned by the Trump Administration.

Clarification of Federal regulatory authority to exclude greenhouse gases from regulation under the Clean Air Act.

«The administration is engaged with Congress to pass cap - and - trade legislation, which the president believes is far superior to a regulatory approach using the existing Clean Air Act.»

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimates that all of this unnecessary regulatory pain asserted under authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act which Congress never intended for «climate pollution» will reduce temperatures only about 0.0015 of one degree by the year 2100.

He has successfully represented clients in matters involving hazardous substances, air and water quality, land use, toxic torts and other environmental matters, including state and federal Superfund liability, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and compliance issues, California's Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) and hazardous waste regulatory issues.

My firm has been acting for major airlines and aviation insurers in all fields of aviation law and particularly air accidents, passenger and cargo claims, litigation of aviation disputes, settlement negotiations, regulatory matters and commercial and finance transactions.

As Queen's Counsel in both criminal and civil fields, Gerard specialises in many aspects of regulatory work and has acted in recent major cases involving catastrophic road, air, chemical, nuclear, construction, rail, shipping, product liability and environmental matters.