Of 5 - Reginfo.Gov: Fill & Download for Free

In summary:Stockholm University reports 0.8 grams per hour with a standard deviation of 0.1.In more detail:This is an interesting question. At first I thought of dust, but it turns out the respiratory danger from lawn mowing is soot particles from engine exhaust gases that are of size PM 2.5 [1] - small enough to penetrate the lung lining and carcinogenic.[2][3]Studies of ultrafine particle emissions from engines have been conducted in Sweden[4] and Australia [5] at least but to answer your question very precisely, the distribution analysis seems to have been focussed on diesel fuelled engines. Nevertheless the Swedish paper addresses the unleaded petrol four stroke lawn mower engine emissions in detail, using two fuels and both with and without the use of a catalytic converter. The breakdown of the emissions is copious and it isn't helpful for me to reproduce it here. But the key statistic would seem to be the emission of 0.8 grams per hour with a standard deviation of 0.1. For expansion on that, please follow the link provided below[4] - it takes you direct to the article without a pay wall.US regulators have been working on this health issue with challenge by the dominant lawn mower engine manufacturer.[6] Ultimately we may see mowers, chain saws, hedge trimmers, line trimmers and other gasoline powered power gardening machines shipping with little catalytic converters.[7] In fact you may be able to buy an aftermarket catalytic converter for your lawn mower right now.[8] Either way, it may be wise to wear a suitable respirator or mask if you are around a lot of such engine emissions.[9] My engine has an air filter ... aren't I just as important?References1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-51841/Why-mowing-lawn-bad-you.html3. http://www.ehow.com/facts_7269869_common-small-engine-exhaust-fumes_.html4. Westerholm et al "Measurement of regulated and unregulated exhausts emissions from a lawn mower with and without an oxidizing catalyst: A comparison of two different fuels." http://www.utahmomsforcleanair.org/docs/lawn-mower-emissions-report.pdf5. Department of the Environment, "Health Impacts of Ultrafine Particles" http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/health-impacts/pubs/health-impacts.pdf6. http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2005/06/updates-on-lawn-mowers-and-deadly.html7. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=200710&RIN=2060-AM348. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10034038-54.html9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate_mask

Well, first and foremost, I’m very glad to see the White House comparing the Obama economy from after the end of the Great Recession (ie, going from Q3 2009[1] ) rather than including it, as happens so often.That is, however, a tacit admission that presidents do, in fact, inherit economies[2] . They don’t just hit some magical, economic reset button on Day 1.Anyway, the first thing that jumps out at me in the adulatory press release is that the baseline they’re using is the Congressional Budget Office’s “final pre-election forecasts[3] from August 2016 [to] illustrate how today’s economic turnaround was unexpected before President Trump’s election.”And while it might very well be the case that the economy wasn’t expected to continue its expansion as it has prior to the election, nor does using a pre-election baseline actually capture the change in economic conditions following Trump’s inauguration.If we’re conceding that a president doesn’t take full ownership of the economy the instant they’re sworn in, they most certainly don’t the instant they’re elected. Even if you take the view that a president’s election changes the way people view the economic outlook[4] , and thereby impact business conditions, the economy itself doesn’t change overnight.Moreover and finally, if you want to make a complete case about the state of the economy left at the end of the Obama Administration, then it makes sense to use as-complete-as-possible data that captures the entirety of the Obama Administration.So, rather than use CBO’s August 2016 report, let’s go with its January 2017 report, since its “actual values reflect data released as of December 6, 2016.” From there, we can make a faithful recreation of the charts presented in the White House’s release:So the data looks accurate (which is usually something we wouldn’t have to check on a White House press release, but here we are); and, on the whole, CBO’s projections underestimated the present economic conditions.But here’s the question that this data doesn’t answer: Did Trump do something to beat projected economic conditions, or was the CBO’s projection just wrong?When you look at the CBO projections, the points of inflection occur at the third quarter of 2017 (ie, July-September). So if you want to make the argument that Trump beat expectations explicitly because of something he did, we’d need to identify an action taken at or before that point of inflection which could have bent the curves.But when you go back in time, that period was not marked by any economic reforms, but instead the collapse of Trump + allies’ efforts to repeal Obamacare[5] . The tax cut package, which was both his signature and first major reform[6] , was not signed into law until December 2017 and didn’t take effect until later.Even tracking his regulatory reforms, despite announcing his policy within days of swearing in[7] , there were no significant financial or labor reforms in the early months of 2017[8] (because it takes a long time to fully repeal a regulation). And while the Administration claimed $8.1 billion in savings by the end of fiscal year 2017 (ie, September, so within our inflection point) due to regulatory reform[9] , by far its single biggest saver was the Removal of Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule[10] - savings valued at almost $6 billion.It strikes me as highly, highly unlikely that removing obligations for Federal contractors to abide by equal pay and sexual harassment rules had a significant multiplier effect in general economic performance.Whereas if you were to draw trendlines from CBO’s FY17:Q3 forecast, you get the following:While, yes, the actual data still overperform the trendlines, the gaps are much narrower. Regarding nonfarm employment, when considering that CBO was already under-projecting reported numbers, the gap would all but vanish (and that unemployment trendline is remarkable).The big miss is the labor force participation rate, which likely had follow-on effects to a lot of its forecasting; however, CBO was not alone in that regard, and the forces driving labor force participation are much more complicated than any one thing you could attribute to presidential action alone[11] .But this all suggests that the CBO was taking a generally conservative approach to projecting then-extant trends forward. This makes particular sense when considering what the CBO exists to do[12] .Its job is not to be cheerleaders for policymakers, but to provide reality checks on their proposals; and as such, it makes much more sense for them to take a conservative approach than an optimistic one (ie, get policymakers to brace for the worst while hoping for the best).Now, that’s not to say that overperforming CBO’s bearishness isn’t good, but it’s also not all that remarkable in and of itself. Moreover, there’s no one thing that you can directly attribute to Trump at the time CBO’s projections inflect to say that he was responsible for the divergence.Moreover and finally, when considering the actions Trump took following the inflection/divergence (ie, the tax cuts and trade war), beating the inherited, extant trends by a couple of points when we were promised “rocket fuel”[13] [14] is a rather underwhelming outcome[15] .I imagine that’s likely why the Administration did not include these comparative charts in its back-patting[16] :Footnotes[1] https://www.nber.org/cycles.html[2] Carter Moore's answer to How long does it take for a newly-elected US President to begin to have an effect on the economy?[3] Budget and Economic Data[4] Carter Moore's answer to Why do some people say that President Trump’s approval rating should be higher because of the economy? What “should” it be?[5] Trump owns plenty of blame for health-care defeat[6] Carter Moore's answer to Why does Trump believe he did something different the past two years with the economy to differentiate it from the years of strong economic activity he inherited under Obama?[7] Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs[8] Tracking deregulation in the Trump era[9] https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_TOPLINE_All_20171207.pdf[10] Trump Order Drops Pesky Regulations On Equal Pay, Sexual Harassment[11] Carter Moore's answer to Which president, Obama or Trump, has created the most jobs at the same period in their presidency?[12] Carter Moore's answer to How is the Congressional Budget Office able to be nonpartisan?[13] After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises[14] Trump handed big business a massive tax cut, and all he got in return was embarrassment[15] U.S. GDP growth slows to 2.3% in 2019 - Axios[16] Trump promised to eliminate the deficit within 8 years. It would take until 2035 under his new budget proposal. | Markets Insider

Interesting…There are mixed issues and jurisdictions.The feds have a long reach with interstate commerce and import export regulations. In this case he may not have a legal footing to change the current regulations and law. Executive orders must still comply with the law.Commerce completely inside a state may be exempt from any move Trump makes (Tesla emission are not going to change ;-) ). I recall when moving from one state to another, tailpipe emission regulations often had a footnote to allow me to move with my vehicle. Metro areas have tailpipe regulations that differ from rural areas in some cases. Historically Calif has had tighter regulations and this was not challenged then so a precedent history is in place.If and only if this is a regulation can he act and then Congress (House and Senate) can squash a regulation change (BTW inaction is consent).See DASHBOARD - REGINFO.GOV it is not simple but he has limits.Consider:“Congress enacts the legislation that mandates or authorizes agencies to issue regulations. Through the APA and other laws, Congress also establishes the procedures that govern agency rulemaking. Congress may use a variety of processes as part of its oversight of agency action, including holding hearings or informal meetings, issuing reports, or adopting legislation. In addition, Congress, through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8), may review and choose to reject new regulations issued by Federal agencies. The CRA requires Federal agencies to submit all new final rules to both the House and Senate. After submission, Congress may begin a process to reconsider and vote to overturn the rule.” FAQIn this case he is going up the down staircase and is a tripping hazard.Call or contact your elected officials.The regulations he wants to change are already in design and test. There is no cost saving to consumers. The research and development frameworks are already costed out. This makes no sense.Congress can act if the future target goals prove impossible to meet.Timeline of motor and engine technology - Wikipedia