<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[tailpipe legislation in CA]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Saw this on the news this morning.</p>
<p dir="auto">California evidently wants to put a new tailpipe law into place but the head of the EPA shot it down, even though his staff supported the idea.  This all is response to concerns over auto emissions in that state.</p>
<p dir="auto">I'm curious about the details and what they propose that will affect emissions by changing the makeup of tailpipes....</p>
<p dir="auto">Anyone else hear anything about this?  Or maybe a better question would be...anyone really care?</p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/topic/13040/tailpipe-legislation-in-ca</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 10:09:15 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://fargostreet.com/topic/13040.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:27:07 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to tailpipe legislation in CA on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:04:31 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">torbs;202681 wrote:<br />
spelling &gt; you</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">:repost:</p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/post/191482</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://fargostreet.com/post/191482</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[MisterCMK]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:04:31 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to tailpipe legislation in CA on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:29:16 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">KA-T_240;202669 wrote:<br />
All I read in that was a bunch of BS with no explanation about what this "tailpipe" thing is. Other then someway to reduce emitions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">spelling &gt; you</p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/post/191471</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://fargostreet.com/post/191471</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[torbs]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:29:16 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to tailpipe legislation in CA on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:23:51 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Why do we care? lol, we live in "good ole" North Dakota!!!</p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/post/191469</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://fargostreet.com/post/191469</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[JN210]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:23:51 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to tailpipe legislation in CA on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:14:07 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">All I read in that was a bunch of BS with no explanation about what this "tailpipe" thing is. Other then someway to reduce emitions.</p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/post/191459</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://fargostreet.com/post/191459</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[KA-T_240]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:14:07 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to tailpipe legislation in CA on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:09:01 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902012.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902012.html</a></p>
]]></description><link>https://fargostreet.com/post/191454</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://fargostreet.com/post/191454</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[[[global:guest]]]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:09:01 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>