Sentences with phrase «tailpipe rules»

This is the rule that delayed the application of the various regulations until after the Tailpipe Rule took effect on January 2, 2011.

EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirm this — albeit not in so many words — in their joint May 2010 greenhouse gas / fuel economy Tailpipe Rule.

Yet the same officials contend that if Congress were to overturn EPA's greenhouse gas component of the Tailpipe Rule, Americans would consume 25 % more oil (an additional 19.1 billion gallons) over the lifetime of the same vehicles.

EPA and NHTSA's Tailpipe Rule, which implements the May 2009 «Historic Agreement,» sets a combined average fuel economy standard of 34.1 mpg for MY 2016.

66 According to the Triggering Rule, PSD and Title V requirements apply to stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions the moment the Tailpipe Rule takes effect (i.e. January 2, 2011).

26) 16 to nullify the legal force and effect of EPA's Endangerment Rule.17 The Endangerment Rule is the trigger for the Tailpipe Rule and the prerequisite for all other EPA greenhouse gas regulations.

On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing EPA and NHTSA to develop greenhouse gas / fuel economy standards for MYs 2017 - 2025,56 fourteen days after publication of the agencies» Tailpipe Rule prescribing greenhouse gas / fuel economy standards for MYs 2012 - 2016.

According to the Tailpipe Rule, CO2 emissions due to air conditioner - related loads on automobile engines account for 3.9 % of total passenger car greenhouse gas emissions, and various technologies could reduce air conditioner - related CO2 emissions by 10 % to 30 %.51 A 30 % reduction of the 3.9 % of motor vehicle emissions associated with air conditioner engine load would decrease fuel consumption by only 1.1 %.

As part of the «Historic Agreement» 12 brokered by Obama Environment Czar Carol Browner, California and other states agreed to consider compliance with EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards as compliance with their own.13 But in return, auto manufacturers and their trade associations had to support both the Tailpipe Rule and the California waiver.14 In a September 30, 2011 letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa summarized the terms for auto makers under the «Historic Agreement»:

Why didn't counsel for EPA explain to the Supreme Court that an endangerment finding would lead, via a tailpipe rule, to absurd results?

• EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Final Tailpipe Rule: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Final-Tailpipe-Rule.pdf

26, by overturning the Endangerment Rule on which the Tailpipe Rule depends, would «undo» the «Historic Agreement,» leaving California and other states free to create a regulatory patchwork inimical to the health of the U.S. auto industry.19 This was also the key talking point of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the main industry group opposing S. J. Res.

EPA assumes that the Tailpipe Rule and Tailoring Rules will or at least should automatically revise State permitting programs and the SIPs governing them.

** Since the Tailpipe Rule makes GHGs regulated air pollutants, major stationary sources of GHGs are subject to PSD and BACT, EPA reasons.

After all, EPA itself estimates that the Tailpipe Rule — the only rule for which environmental effects are estimated — would avert less than 1 / 100th of a degree Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

Since the Tailpipe Rule does not trigger BACT and PSD for stationary sources, there is also no need for EPA to play lawmaker and «tailor» — that is, amend — the PSD applicability thresholds.

Unsurprisingly, the motion argues, «The [new] CAFE standards and EPA's Tailpipe Rule are virtually identical, with irrelevant differences in how the two standards address air conditioning.»

«For as long as anyone could remember, oil consumption in the U.S. was projected to increase every year but that changes with the tailpipe rule,» he said.

As EPA's Tailpipe Rule acknowledges (p. 25327), there is a «single pool of technologies... that reduce fuel consumption and thereby reduce CO2 emissions as well.»

Thus, if the Tailpipe Rule survives judicial scrutiny, delaying its implementation by six months to a year would have no discernible environmental impact.

EPA's Administrative Record Fails to Establish Any Non-Trivial Benefits from the Tailpipe Rule

The emission standards, promulgated via the Tailpipe Rule, make GHGs subject to regulation under PSD and Title V, according to the Triggering Rule.

Not exact matches

Lobbyist focus also will be on the next generation of near - zero tailpipe emissions standards, or Tier III rules.

Neutered two years ago from the collapse of new - vehicle sales amid a foundering economy, auto makers dropped their historically combative stance over stricter rules and gave over to an historic hike in CAFE in return for a single national tailpipe emissions standard.

What is most infuriating about Johnson's decision is that 16 other states, representing over half of the U.S. population, had either already adopted or pledged to adopt California's tailpipe emissions rules - flying in the face of his «patchwork of state rules» argument.

«The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear two days of oral argument to review four of EPA's greenhouse gas emissions rules: the «timing» rule, the «tailoring» rule, the «endangerment» rule, and the «tailpipe» rule.

We successfully challenged the Bush administration's refusal to let California implement its own, stricter - than - national tailpipe emissions limits under the Clean Air Act, and in June 2009 the EPA issued a waiver to let California enforce its own automobile emissions rules, which also allowed a dozen other states to enforce the same rules.

The Trump administration is speeding toward all - out war with California over fuel economy rules for cars and SUVs, proposing to revoke the state's long - standing authority to enforce its own, tough rules on tailpipe emissions.

Battered and abused by the regulatory behemoth, the automakers fear that the state of California --- which has a special waiver to impose more aggressive tailpipe emissions regulations, though no power over CAFE standards — will create a regulatory situation in which different rules apply in California than in other states.

A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California's proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles» greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016.

California sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January after it rejected the state's 2005 request for a rule waiver to enact its own tailpipe emissions standards.