I just scratch my head at this kind of thing. Does congress and the EPA want us to have better mileage cars? They're regulating against our own auto manufacturers, which makes no sense, even from the standpoint where the Unions are one of the party in control's bigger constituencies. I know enough that VW and every other auto maker has a slew of lobbyists, so it's not like our brilliant govt. employees didn't know this new diesel tech was coming or even coming the same year they were promulgating or passing new regulations. I am doing the math, tho. If a 30 MPG car burns 1 gallon of gas to go those 30 miles, and a 65 MPG car burns ~.5 gallons of diesel to go those same 30 miles, and both gas and diesel are roughly the same when it comes to pollution, which is better? Regulation from the pollution / green guilt POV doesn't even make sense if you apply a teeny bit of logic to it. That's not even accounting for the cleaner diesel engines. On top of that, these diesel engines can burn biodiesel fuels, so the pollution would at least smell like french fries or something.
Now I don't know whether you are railing against Congress, the EPA, or both. If it is the EPA, I suppose we could discuss the rulemaking process if you really want to.
EPA can't pass laws or regulations, they can only enforce what congress passes and the president signs. The laws in question are the Clean Air Acts and amendments of 1970, 1977, and 1990. CAFE standards were enacted by Congress in 1975. Last amended by (guess who?) Congress in 1997 (surprised at the date?). What EPA can do is promulgate various provisions of the law - that is, selectively enforce those various provisions (or not enforce them).
That's mostly incorrect. As the Government's subject-matter experts, agencies promulgate regulations to fill in the gaps created by acts of congress. The bills typically lack detail, thus enabling agencies great leeway in figuring out how they should be implemented. The regulations will go through a public notice-and-comment cycle and are published in the C.F.R. The head of the agency sets the agenda and decides which regulations to enact or amend, and ultimately decides what the new rules will require. The head of the EPA is appointed by the President. I believe that the EPA has a single Commissioner, but I don't feel like looking it up right now. One thng that the E.P.A. cannot do for itself is litigate on behalf of the government; that is handled by D.O.J. But if you want to get partisan about it, there has been plenty written about this administration's control over the decision-making process at the E.P.A., including what legal claims against rule violators to pursue and which to ignore.
That's mostly incorrect. A widely known example of promulgation is the so-called "gag rule" on abortion. Both Bush I and Bush II promulgated rules in different laws: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030413.html And the text of the law in question, passed by congress in 1970: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about/legislation/ofp_regs_42cfr59_10-1-2000.html Bush II promulgated a rule of a different law: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html
good call. i'm keeping my eye out for a good wagon, preferably with a woodie. we've got an elantra for now
No. I gave you examples of promulgation and showed you the language of the law. It's not ambiguous, unless your name is Bill Clinton (who reverse promulgated the gag rule).
sorry, I'm lost. What do executive orders have to do with the regulatory authority (and process) of federal agencies? Or have you moved on?
My bad, I thought that HHS was one of those regulatory authorities/federal agencies. Or are you suggesting there are different rules for some agencies?
I am directly responding to each of your posts. Since you seem to want to go around in circles, why is it that we don't have these 65 MPG cars here, and why is VW not selling theirs here? Please relate the answer to the 2007 law.
Manufacturing costs and Ford's lack of ability to undertake capital investments on the magnitude of building plants.
