document_title: Corporate average fuel economy

question_text: who sets automobile efficiency standards in the united states

question_tokens: who sets automobile efficiency standards in the united states

text: Corporate average fuel economy

text: Overview[edit]

text: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) establish standards separately for passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and nonpassenger automobiles (light trucks) at the maximum feasible levels in each model year, and requires that DOT enforce compliance with the standards. DOT has delegated the responsibilities to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Through EPCA and EISA, U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) also preempts state or local laws: "a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards."

text: The CAFE achieved by a given fleet of vehicles in a given model year is the production-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per USgallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less (but also including medium-duty passenger vehicles, such as large sport-utility vehicles and passenger vans, with GVWR up to 10,000 pounds), produced for sale in the United States. The CAFE standards in a given model year define the CAFE levels that manufacturers' fleets are required to meet in that model year, specific levels depending on the characteristics and mix of vehicles produced by each manufacturer. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the applicable requirement, the manufacturer must either apply sufficient CAFE credits (see below) to cover the shortfall or pay a penalty, currently $5.50 per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. Congress established both of these provisions explicitly in EPCA, as amended in 2007 by EISA. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).[2]

text: Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values. [3] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the fuel economy target for the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) is 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km) (see #Calculations of MPG overestimated for information regarding the difference), and a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) has a fuel economy target of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published. Individual vehicles do not have to meet their fuel economy targets; CAFE compliance is enforced at the fleet level. CAFE 2016 target fuel economy of 34.0 MPG (44 sq. ft. footprint) compares to 2012 advanced vehicle performance of Prius hybrid on the compliance test cycles: 70.7 MPG, Plug-in Prius hybrid: 69.8 MPGe and LEAF electric vehicle: 141.7 MPGe. The compliance fuel economy of plug-in electric vehicles such as the Plug-in Prius or LEAF is complicated by accounting for the energy used in generating electricity. In 2012, the LEAF's compliance fuel consumption was considered to be 0 gal/mi, or infinite fuel economy, as it uses no liquid fuel on board, and that of the Plug-in Prius was also adjusted for the portion of vehicle energy use originating from the electric grid.

text: CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks" even if the majority of "light trucks" are being used as passenger vehicles. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. [4] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[5] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014.

text: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates CAFE standards and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measures vehicle fuel efficiency. Congress specifies that CAFE standards must be set at the "maximum feasible level" given consideration for:

text:
technological feasibility;
economic practicality;
effect of other standards on fuel economy;
need of the nation to conserve energy.

text: Historically, the EPA has encouraged consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, while the NHTSA expressed concerns that smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles may lead to increased traffic fatalities.[6][7] Thus higher fuel efficiency was associated with lower traffic safety, intertwining the issues of fuel economy, road-traffic safety, air pollution, and climate change. In the mid-2000s, increasing safety of smaller cars and the poor safety record of light trucks began to reverse this association.[8] Nevertheless, in 2008, the on-road vehicle fleets in the United States and Canada had the lowest overall average fuel economy among first world nations: 25 miles per US gallon (9.4 l/100 km) in North America, versus 45 miles per US gallon (5.2 l/100 km) in the European Union and was even higher in Japan, according to data as of 2008.[9] Furthermore, despite general opinion that larger and heavier (and therefore relatively fuel-uneconomical) vehicles are safer,[10] the U.S. traffic fatality rate—and its trend over time is higher than some other western nations, although it has recently started to gradually decline at a faster rate than in previous years.[11]

text: Effect on automotive fuel economy[edit]

text: In 2002, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a report on the effects of the CAFE standard.[12] The report's conclusions include a finding that in the absence of CAFE, and with no other fuel economy regulation substituted, motor vehicle fuel consumption would have been approximately 14 percent higher than it actually was in 2002. One cost of this increase in fuel economy is a possible increase in fatalities, estimated to be 1,300 to 2,600 increased fatalities in 1993,[13] albeit with certain of the committee members dissenting.[14]

text: A plot of average overall vehicle fuel economy (CAFE) for new model year passenger cars, the required by law CAFE standard target fuel economy value (CAFE standard) for new model year passenger cars, and fuel prices, adjusted for inflation, shows that there has been little variation over the past 20 years. Within this period, there are three distinct periods of fuel economy change:

text:
from 1979-1982 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose dramatically and the price of fuel increased;
from 1984-1986 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose and the price of fuel decreased rapidly;
from 1986-1988 the fuel economy rose at a significantly subdued rate and eventually leveled off as the price of fuel fell and the CAFE standard was relaxed[15]

text: before returning to 1986 levels in 1990. These are following by an extended period during which the passenger car CAFE standard, the observed average passenger car fuel economy, and the price of gasoline remained stable, and finally a period starting about 2003 when prices rose dramatically and fuel economy has slowly responded.

text: The law of supply and demand would predict that an increase in gasoline prices would lead in the long run to an increase in the average fuel economy of the U.S. passenger car fleet, and that a drop in gasoline prices would be associated with a reduction in the average fuel economy of the entire U.S. fleet.[16] There is some evidence that this happened with an increase in market share of lower fuel economy light trucks and SUVs and decline in passenger car sales, as a percentage of total fleet sales, as car buying trends changed during the 1990s,[17] the impact of which is not reflected in this chart. In the case of passenger cars, U.S. average fuel economy did not fall as economic theory would predict, suggesting that CAFE standards maintained the higher fuel economy of the passenger car fleet during the long period from the end of the 1979 energy crisis to the rise of gasoline prices in the early 2000s. Most recently, fuel economy has increased about one mpg from 2006 to 2007. This increase is due primarily to increased fuel efficiency of imported cars.[18] Similarly, the law of supply and demand predicts that due to the United States' large percentage consumption of the world's oil supply, that increasing fuel economy would drive down the gasoline prices that U.S. consumers would otherwise have to pay. Reductions in petroleum demand in the United States helped create the collapse of OPEC market power in 1986.[12]

text: The "CAFE" and "CAFE standard" shown here only regards new model passenger car fuel economy and target fuel economy (respectively) rather than the overall U.S. fuel economy average which tends to be dominated by used vehicles manufactured in previous years, new model light truck CAFE standards, light truck CAFE averages, or aggregate data.[19][20]

text: Calculation[edit]

text: Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a harmonic mean, not a simple arithmetic mean (average) [5] – namely, the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocal values. For a fleet composed of four different kinds of vehicle A, B, C and D, produced in numbers nA, nB, nC and nD, with fuel economies fA, fB, fC and fD, the CAFE would be:

text: For example, a fleet of 4 vehicles getting 15, 13, 17, and 100 mpg has a CAFE of slightly less than 19 mpg:

text: While the arithmetic mean fuel economy of the fleet is just over 36 mpg:

text: The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car in the fleet for the same number of miles, while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car using the same amount of gas (i.e., the 13 mpg vehicle would travel 13 miles (21 km) with one gallon while the 100 mpg vehicle would travel 100 miles).

text: For the purposes of CAFE, a manufacturer's car output is divided into a domestic fleet (vehicles with more than 75 percent U.S., Canadian or post-NAFTA Mexican content) and a foreign fleet (everything else). Each of these fleets must separately meet the requirements. The two-fleet requirement was developed by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) as a means to ensure job creation in the United States. The UAW successfully lobbied Congress to write this provision into the enabling legislation – and continues to advocate this position.[21] The two fleet rule for light trucks was removed in 1996.

text: For the fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) [22] as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles.[23] The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg.[12] However, the total increase in a manufacturer's average fuel economy rating due to dual-fueled vehicles cannot exceed 1.2mpg.[24] Section 32906 reduces the increase due to dual-fueled vehicles to 0 through 2020. Electric vehicles are also incentivized by the 0.15 fuel divisor, but are not subject to the 1.2 mpg cap like dual-fuel vehicles.

text: Manufacturers are also allowed to earn CAFE "credits" in any year they exceed CAFE requirements, which they may use to offset deficiencies in other years. CAFE credits can be applied to the three years before or the five years after the year in which they are earned.[25] The reason for this flexibility is so manufacturers are penalized only for persistent failure to meet the requirements, not for transient non-compliance due to market conditions.

text: History[edit]

text: Fuel economy regulations were first introduced in 1978, only for passenger vehicles. The next year, a second category was defined for light trucks. These were distinguished from heavy duty vehicles by a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6000 pounds or less. The GVWR threshold was raised to 8500 pounds in 1980 and has remained at that level through 2010. Thus certain large trucks and SUV's were exempt, such as the Hummer and the Ford Excursion. From 1979-1991, separate standards were established for two-wheel drive (2WD) and four-wheel drive (4WD) light trucks, but for most of this period, car makers were allowed to choose between these separate standards or a combined standard to be applied to the entire fleet of light trucks they sold that model year. In 1980 and 1981, respectively, a manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in passenger cars could meet standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg. After 2010, new rules set varying targets based on truck size footprint.[citation needed]

text: Standards by model year, 1978-2011[edit]

text:
CAFE standards for each model year in miles per gallon.[26]

Model Year
Passenger Cars
Light Trucks

2WD
4WD
Combined

1978
18.0

1979
19.0
17.2
15.8

1980
20.0
16.0
14.0

1981
22.0
16.7
15.0

1982
24.0
18.0
16.0
17.5

1983
26.0
19.5
17.5
19.0

1984
27.0
20.3
18.5
20.0

1985
27.5
19.7
18.9
19.5

1986
26.0
20.5
19.5
20.0

1987
26.0
21.0
19.5
20.5

1988
26.0
21.0
19.5
20.5

1989
26.5
21.5
19.0
20.5

1990
27.5
20.5
19.0
20.0

1991
27.5
20.7
19.1
20.2

1992
27.5

20.2

1993
27.5

20.4

1994
27.5

20.5

1995
27.5

20.6

1996
27.5

20.7

1997
27.5

20.7

1998
27.5

20.7

1999
27.5

20.7

2000
27.5

20.7

2001
27.5

20.7

2002
27.5

20.7

2003
27.5

20.7

2004
27.5

20.7

2005
27.5

21.0

2006
27.5

21.6

2007
27.5

22.2

2008
27.5

22.5

2009
27.5

23.1

2010
27.5

23.5

2011
30.2

24.1

text: Performance in practice[edit]

text: Since 1980, the traditional Japanese manufacturers have increased their combined fleet average fuel economy by 1.6 miles per gallon according to the March 30, 2009 Summary of Fuel Economy Performance published annually by NHTSA. During this time, they also increased their sales in the United States by 221%. The traditional European manufacturers actually decreased their fleet average fuel economy by 2 miles per gallon while increasing their sales volume by 91%. The traditional U.S. manufacturers, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors, increased their fleet average fuel economy by 4.1 miles per gallon since 1980 according to the latest government figures. During this time the sales of U.S. manufacturers decreased by 29%.

text: A number of manufacturers choose to pay CAFE penalties rather than attempt to comply with the regulations. These tend to be companies with small U.S. market share and expensive, high performance vehicles, such as Porsche, Mercedes, and Fiat. In model year 2012, Jaguar (Land Rover) and Volvo did not meet CAFE requirements. They paid fines totaling 15 million dollars for the year.[27]

text: For the 2011 model year, Spyker followed by GM light trucks had the lowest fleet average while Tesla followed by Honda had the highest.[28]

text: Before the oil price increases of the 2000s, overall fuel economy for both cars and light trucks in the U.S. market reached its highest level in 1987, when manufacturers managed 26.2 mpg (8.98 L/100 km). The average in 2004 was 24.6 mpg.[26] In that time, vehicles increased in size from an average of 3,220 pounds to 4,066 pounds (1,461 kg to 1,844 kg), in part due to an increase in truck ownership from 28% to 53%.

text: 2006 reform attempt and lawsuit[edit]

text: The CAFE rules for trucks were officially amended at the end of March 2006. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the rules, returning them to NHTSA, as discussed below. These changes would have segmented truck fleets by vehicle size and class as of 2011. All SUVs and passenger vans up to 10,000 pounds GVWR[29] would have had to comply with CAFE standards regardless of size, but pickup trucks and cargo vans over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) would have remained exempt.

text: Under the new final light truck CAFE standard 2008-2011, fuel economy standards would have been restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint", the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy would have been established for each increment in footprint using a continuous mathematical formula. Smaller footprint light trucks had higher fuel economy targets and larger trucks lower targets. Manufacturers who made more large trucks would have been allowed to meet a lower overall CAFE target, manufacturers who make more small trucks would have needed to meet a higher standard. Unlike previous CAFE standards there was no requirement for a manufacturer or the industry as a whole to meet any particular overall actual MPG target, since that will depend on the mix of sizes of trucks manufactured and ultimately purchased by consumers. Some critics pointed out that this might have had the unintended consequence of pushing manufacturers to make ever-larger vehicles to avoid strict economy standards.[30] However, the equation used to calculate the fuel economy target had a built in mechanism that provides an incentive to reduce vehicle size to about 52 square feet (the approximate midpoint of the current light truck fleet.)

text: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with NHTSA that economic benefit-cost analysis (maximizing net economic benefits to the Nation) is, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), an appropriate method to select the maximum feasible stringency of CAFE standards, but nonetheless found that NHTSA incorrectly set a value of zero dollars to the global warming damage caused by CO2 emissions; failed to set a "backstop" to prevent trucks from emitting more CO2 than in previous years; failed to set standards for vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) range; and failed to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than a more abbreviated environmental impact assessment. The Court directed NHTSA to prepare a new standard as quickly as possible and to fully evaluate that new standard's impact on the environment.[31]

text: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007[edit]

text: On December 19, 2007, President George W. Bush rendered the court judgment obsolete by signing the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which the House and Senate had passed with broad support), and which set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel.[32] This was the first legislative change to the CAFE standard since it was created in 1975.[citation needed] The requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." President Bush faced serious pressure to reduce the Nation's dependency on oil and this was part of his initiative to do so.

text: Increases and light truck standard reform[edit]

text: In 2006, the rule making for light trucks for model years 2008–2011 included a reform to the structure for CAFE standards for light trucks and gave manufacturers the option for model years 2008-2010 to comply with the reformed standard or to comply with the unreformed standard. The reformed standard was based on the vehicle footprint.[33] The unreformed standard for 2008 was set to be 22.5mpg.

text: To achieve the target of 35mpg authorized under EISA for the combined fleet of passenger cars and light truck for MY2020, NHTSA is required to continue raising the CAFE standards. In determining a new CAFE standard, NHTSA must assess the environmental impacts of each new standard and the effect of this standard on employment. With the EISA, NHTSA needed to take new analysis including taking a fresh look at the potential impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and assessing whether or not the impacts are significant within the meaning of NEPA.

text: NHTSA has to issue its new standards eighteen months before the model year for fleet. According to NHTSA report, in order to achieve this industry wide combined fleet of at least 35mpg, NHTSA must set new standards well in advance of the model year so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with lead time enough to make extensive necessary changes in their automobiles. The EISA also called for a reform where the standards set by the Transportation Department would be are “attribute based” so as to ensure that the safety of vehicles is not compromised for higher standards.

text: CAFE credit trading provisions[edit]

text: The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act also instructed NHTSA to establish a credit trading and transferring scheme to allow manufacturers to transfer credits between categories, as well as sell them to other manufacturers or non-manufacturers. In addition, the period over which credits could be carried forward was extended from three years to five. Traded or transferred credits may not be used to meet the minimum standard in the domestic passenger car fleet, however they may be used to meet the "attribute standard".[34] This latter allowance has drawn criticism from the UAW which fears it will lead manufacturers to increase the importation of small cars to offset shortfalls in the domestic market.

text: These new flexibilities were implemented by regulation on March 23, 2009 in the Final Rule for 2011 Model Year Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.

text: Calculations using official CAFE data, and the newly proposed credit trading flexibility contained in the September 28, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking[35] show that ninety-eight percent of the benefit derived from just the cross fleet credit trading provision flows to Toyota. According to these calculations 75% of the benefit from the two new CAFE credit trading provisions, cross fleet trading and 5-year carry-forward, falls to foreign manufacturers. Toyota can use the provision to avoid or reduce compliance on average by 0.69 mpg per year through 2020,

text:
Hyundai (1.01 mpg),
Nissan (0.65),
Honda (0.83 mpg),
Mitsubishi (0.13 mpg),
Subaru (0.08),
Chrysler (0.14 mpg),
GM (0.09 mpg), and
Ford (0.18 mpg) also benefit.

text: The estimated value of the CAFE exemption gained by Toyota is $2.5 billion; Honda’s benefit is worth $800 million, and Nissan’s benefit is valued at $900 million in reduced CAFE compliance costs. Foreign companies gained $5.5 billion in benefits compared with the $1.8 billion that went to the Detroit Three.

text: Out-year and alternative fuel standard changes[edit]

text: In the years 2021 to 2030, the standards requires MPG to be the "maximum feasible" fuel economy. The law allows NHTSA to issue additional requirements for cars and trucks based on the footprint model or other mathematical standard. Additionally, each manufacturer must meet a minimum standard of the higher of either 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles or 92% of the projected average for all manufacturers. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is directed based on National Academy of Sciences studies to set medium and heavy-duty truck MPG standards to the "maximum feasible". Additionally, the law phases out the mpg credit previously granted to E85 flexible-fuel vehicle manufacturers and adds in one for biodiesel, and it adds a requirement that NHTSA publish replacement tire fuel efficiency ratings. The bill also adds support for initial state and local infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles.

text: Implementating regulations[edit]

text: On April 22, 2008 NHTSA responded to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with proposed new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks effective model year 2011.[36] The new rules also introduce the footprint model for cars as well as trucks, where if a manufacturer makes more large cars and trucks they will be allowed to meet a lower standard for fuel economy. This means that an overall fuel efficiency for a particular manufacturer nor the fleet as a whole cannot be predicted with certainty since it will depend on the actual product mix manufactured. However, if the product mix is as NHTSA predicts, car fuel economy would increase from a current standard of 27.5 mpg‑US (8.6 L/100 km; 33.0 mpg‑imp) to 31.0 mpg‑US (7.6 L/100 km; 37.2 mpg‑imp) in 2011. The new regulations are designed to be "optimized" with respect to a certain set of assumptions which include: gas prices in 2016 will be $2.25 a U.S. gallon (59.4¢/L), all new car purchasers will pay 7% interest rates on their vehicles purchases, and only care about fuel costs for the first 5 years of a vehicle's life, and that the value of global warming is $7 per ton[vague] CO2. This corresponds to a global warming value of $4.31 savings a year per car under the new regulations. Further, the new regulations assume that no advanced hybrids (Toyota Prius), plug-in hybrids and extended range electric vehicles (Chevrolet Volt), electric cars (Th!nk City), nor alternative fuel vehicles (Honda Civic GX) will be used to achieve these fuel economies. The proposal again explained that U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) requires that "a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards", and explained that laws or regulations applicable to motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions are related to fuel economy standards.

text: In mid-October 2008, DOT completed and released a final environmental impact statement in anticipation of issuing standards for model years 2011-2015.[37] Based on its consideration of the public comments and other available information, including information on the financial condition of the automotive industry, the agency adjusted its analysis and the standards and prepared a final rule and Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for MYs 2011-2015.[38] On November 14, 2008, the Office of Management and Budget concluded review of the rule and FRIA.[39] However, issuance of the final rule was held in abeyance. On January 7, 2009, the Department of Transportation announced that the final rule would not be issued, writing: "The Bush Administration will not finalize its rulemaking on Corporate Fuel Economy Standards. The recent financial difficulties of the automobile industry will require the next administration to conduct a thorough review of matters affecting the industry, including how to effectively implement the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done significant work that will position the next Transportation Secretary to finalize a rule before the April 1, 2009 deadline."

text: 2009 Obama Administration directive[edit]

text: On January 27, 2009, President Barack Obama directed the Department of Transportation to review relevant legal, technological, and scientific considerations associated with establishing more stringent fuel economy standards, and to finalize the 2011 model year standard by the end of March. This single-model year standard was issued March 27, 2009, and is about one mpg lower than the fuel economy standards previously recommended under the Bush Administration. "These standards are important steps in the nation's quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families", said Secretary LaHood. The new standards will raise the industry-wide combined average to 27.3 miles per US gallon (8.6 L/100 km; 32.8 mpg‑imp) (a 2.0 mpg‑US (2.4 mpg‑imp) increase over the 2010 model year average), as estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It will save about 887,000,000 U.S. gallons (3.36×109 L) of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons. This 2011 single-year standard will use an attribute-based system, which sets fuel economy standards for individual vehicle models, based on the footprint model. Secretary LaHood also noted that work on the multi-year fuel economy plan for model years after 2011 is already well underway. The review will include an evaluation of fuel-saving technologies, market conditions and future product plans from the manufacturers. The effort will be coordinated with interested stakeholders and other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.[40] The new rules were immediately challenged in court again by the Center for Biological Diversity as not addressing the inadequacies found by the previous court rulings.[41]

text: Future standards[edit]

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2012)

text: Model year 2012-2016 Obama Administration proposal[edit]

text: On May 19, 2009, President Barack Obama proposed a new national fuel economy program which adopts uniform federal standards to regulate both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while preserving the legal authorities of DOT, EPA and California. The program covered model year 2012 to model year 2016 and ultimately required an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per US gallon (6.63 L/100 km; 42.6 mpg‑imp) in 2016 (of 39 miles per gallon for cars and 30 mpg for trucks), a jump from the 2009 average for all vehicles of 25 miles per gallon. Obama said, "The status quo is no longer acceptable."[42] The higher fuel economy was projected to reduce oil consumption by approximately 1.8 billion barrels (290,000,000 m3) over the life of the program and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 900 million metric tons; the expected consumer costs in terms of higher car prices was unknown. Ten car companies and the UAW embraced the national program because it provided certainty and predictability to 2016 and included flexibilities that would significantly reduce the cost of compliance. Stated goals for the program included: saving consumers money over the long term in increased fuel efficiency, preserving consumer choice (the new rules do not dictate the size of cars, trucks and SUVs that manufacturers can produce; rather it requires that all sizes of vehicles become more energy efficient), reduced air pollution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other conventional pollutants, one national policy for all automakers instead of three standards (a DOT standard, an EPA standard and a California standard that would apply to 13 other states), and industry desires: clarity, predictability and certainty concerning the rules while giving them flexibility on how to meet the expected outcomes and the lead time they need to innovate. The policy was expected to result in yearly 5% increases in efficiency from 2012 through 2016, 1.8 billion barrels (290,000,000 m3) of oil saved cumulatively over the lifetime of the program and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 177 million of today's cars off the road.[43]

text: By model year 2014, many of the program's goals were being met. The average new vehicle fuel economy was 30.7 mpg (35.6 mpg for cars and 25.5 mpg for trucks) and for the years 2012-2015, auto industry outperformed the GHG standard by a substantial margin. Consumers are expected to save an estimated 16.6 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of model year 2011 to 2014 vehicles due to the manufacturers exceeding the CAFE standards in those years.[44]

text: 2011 agreement for Model Years 2017-2025[edit]

text: On July 29, 2011, President Obama announced an agreement with thirteen large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025. He was joined by Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo—which together account for over 90% of all vehicles sold in the United States—as well as the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the State of California, who were all participants in the deal.[45] The agreement resulted in new CAFE regulations for model year 2017-2025 vehicles, which were finalized on August 28, 2012.[46] The major increases in stringency and the changes in the structure of CAFE create a need for research that incorporates the demand and supply sides of the new vehicle market in a more detailed manner than was needed with static fuel economy standards.[47]

text: Volkswagen responded to the July 29, 2011 agreement with the following statement: "Volkswagen does not endorse the proposal under discussion. It places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks. Passenger cars would be required to achieve 5% annual improvements, and light trucks 3.5% annual improvements. The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains. The proposal encourages manufacturers and customers to shift toward larger, less efficient vehicles, defeating the goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions."[48] Additionally, Volkswagen has since approached U.S. lawmakers about lowering their proposal to double fuel efficiency for passenger cars by 2025. Volkswagen at the time claimed that the new plan was unfair, but the company was later revealed to have been systematically cheating emissions tests. As a result, Volkswagen is one of the only major auto manufacturers to not sign the agreement that has led to the current proposal from the Obama administration.[49]

text: 2016 mid-term review[edit]

text: The 2011 agreement set up requirements for a mid-term review to look at how the industry was progressing with the new standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA, NHTSA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a technical paper assessing whether or not the auto industry will be able to reach the 2022 to 2025 mpg standards. The Draft Technical Assessment Report, as the paper is called, is the first step in the mid-term evaluation process.[50]

text: The government groups found that the auto industry has been doing a good job innovating and pushing towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The paper says the technology is cheaper or about what was expected in terms of cost, and that automakers are adopting new technologies quicker than expected. Still, the paper says that the 54.5 mpg goal is unrealistic. That goal was based off a market that was 67 percent cars and 33 percent trucks and SUVs. American customers aren't buying that many cars—the market is still about 50/50 and will likely stay that way. The paper says more realistic goals are 50 mpg to 52.6.[50]

text: Agreed standards by model year, 2011-2025[edit]

text:
2011-2025 CAFE standards for each model year in miles per gallon.[51]

Model Year
Passenger Cars
Light Trucks

footprint: 41 sq ft (3.8 m2) or smaller (e.g., 2011 Honda Fit)
footprint: 55 sq ft (5.1 m2) or bigger (e.g., Mercedes-Benz S-Class)
footprint: 41 sq ft (3.8 m2) or smaller (e.g., Chevy S10)
footprint: 75 sq ft (7.0 m2) or bigger (e.g., Ford F-150)

CAFE
EPA Window Sticker
CAFE
EPA Window Sticker
CAFE
EPA Window Sticker
CAFE
EPA Window Sticker

2012
36
27
28
21
30
23
22
17

2013
37
28
28.5
22
31
24
22.5
17

2014
38
28
29
22
32
24
23
18

2015
39
29
30
23
33
25
23.5
18

2016
41
31
31
24
34
26
24.5
19

2017
44
33
33
25
36
27
25
19

2018
45
34
34
26
37
28
25
19

2019
47
35
35
26
38
28
25
19

2020
49
36
36
27
39
29
25
19

2021
51
37
38
28
42
31
25
19

2022
53
38
40
30
44
33
26
20

2023
56
40
42
31
46
34
27
21

2024
58
41
44
33
48
36
28.5
22

2025
60
43
46
34
50
37
30
23

text: Active debate[edit]

text: CAFE neither directly offers incentives for customers to choose fuel efficient vehicles nor directly affects fuel prices. Rather, it attempts to accomplish the goals indirectly, by making it more expensive for automakers to build inefficient vehicles by introducing penalties.[12] The conservative Heartland Institute contends that CAFE standards do not work economically to consumers' benefit, smaller cars are more likely to be damaged in a collision, and insurance premiums for them are higher than for many larger cars.[52] However, the Insurance Companies' Highway Loss Data Institute publishes data showing that larger vehicles are more expensive to insure.[53]

text: CAFE advocates assert that most of the gains in fuel economy over the past 30 years can be attributed to the standard itself.[54] Opponents assert that economic forces are responsible for fuel economy gains, and that higher fuel prices drove customers to seek more fuel-efficient vehicles.[55] CAFE standards have come under attack by some conservative thinktanks, along with safety experts, car and truck manufacturers, some consumer and environment groups, and organized labor.[52]

text: Effect on traffic safety[edit]

text: Historically, NHTSA has expressed concerns that automotive manufacturers would increase mileage by reducing vehicle weight, which might lead to weight disparities in the vehicle population and increased danger for occupants of lighter vehicles. However, vehicle safety ratings are now made available to consumers by NHTSA[56] and by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.[57] A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.[12] A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to "2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year.[58] The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG.[59] Proponents of higher CAFE standards argue that it is the "Footprint" model of CAFE for trucks that encourages production of larger trucks with concomitant increases in vehicle weight disparities, and point out that some small cars such as the Mini Cooper and Toyota Matrix are four times safer than SUVs like the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.[59] They argue that the quality of the engineering design is the prime determinant of vehicular safety, not the vehicle's mass. In 2006, IIHS found that some of the smallest cars have good crash safety, and others do not, depending upon the engineering design.[60] In a 2007 analysis, IIHS found that 50 percent of fatalities in small four-door vehicles were single vehicle crashes, compared to 83 percent in very large SUVs. The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion. The analysis' conclusions include findings that death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles, but cars almost always have lower death rates than SUVs or pickup trucks of comparable weight.[59] A 2005 IIHS plot shows that in collisions between SUVs weighing 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) and cars, the car driver is more than 4X more likely to be killed, and if the SUV weighs over 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) the car driver is 9 times more likely to be killed, with 16 percent of deaths occurring in car-to-car crashes and 18 percent in car-to-truck crashes.[61] Recent studies find about 75 percent of two-vehicle fatalities involve a truck, and about half these fatalities involve a side-impact crash. Risk to the driver of the other vehicle is almost 10 times higher when the vehicle is a one ton pickup compared to an imported car. And a 2003 Transportation Research Board study show greater safety disparities among vehicles of differing price, country of origin, and quality than among vehicles of different size and weight.[62] These more recent studies tend to discount the importance of vehicle mass to traffic safety, pointing instead to the quality of engineering design as the primary factor.[63]

text: Increased automobile usage[edit]

text: As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more, which can mitigate some of the gains in carbon dioxide emissions from the higher standards. According to the National Academies Report (Page 19)[12] a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency leads to an average increase in travel distance of 1-2%. This phenomenon is referred to as the "rebound effect". The report stated (page 20) that the fuel efficiency improvements of light-duty vehicles have reduced the overall U.S. emissions of CO2 by 7%.

text: It is also possible that auto buyers may choose to keep their older cars (some of which are less efficient) for longer before making a new purchase.[52]

text: However, associated costs, such as increased deaths, may be more than offset by savings on a global scale, because increased CAFE standards reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable sources of imported petroleum[64] and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide.

text: Economic arguments[edit]

text: In the May 6, 2007 edition of Autoline Detroit, Bob Lutz, an automobile designer/executive of BMW and Big Three fame, asserted that the CAFE standard was a failure and said it was like trying to fight obesity by requiring tailors to make only small-sized clothes.[65]

text: Proponents state that automobile-purchasing decisions that may have global effects should not be left entirely up to individuals operating in a free market.[12]

text: Automakers have said that small, fuel-efficient vehicles cost the auto industry billions of dollars. They cost almost as much to design and market but cannot be sold for as much as larger vehicles such as SUVs, because consumers expect small cars to be inexpensive.[66] In 1999, USA Today reported small cars tend to depreciate faster than larger cars, so they are worth less in value to the consumer over time.[66] However, 2007 Edmunds depreciation data show that some small cars, primarily premium models, are among the best in holding their value.[67]

text: Technological considerations[edit]

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (December 2011)

text: There are a large number of technologies that manufacturers can apply to improve fuel efficiency short of implementing hybrid or plug-in hybrid technologies. Applied aggressively, at a cost of several thousand dollars per vehicle, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that these technologies can almost double MPG.[clarification needed][68]

text: Some technologies, such as four valves per cylinder, are already widely applied in cars, but not trucks. Manufacturers dispute how effective these technologies are, their retail price, and how willing customers are to pay for these improvements. Payback on these improvements is highly dependent on fuel prices.[69]

text: Automaker viewpoints and consumer preferences[edit]

text: Historically, automakers and some conservative groups have believed consumers do not prioritize fuel economy. In 2003, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokesman Eron Shosteck asserted automakers produce more than 30 models rated at 30 mpg or more for the U.S. market, and they are poor sellers.[70] In 2004, GM retiree Charles Amann said statistically, consumers do not pick the weak-performing vehicle when given a choice of engines.[71] However, after a spike in gas prices, a 2006 Consumer Reports survey concluded fuel economy is the most important consideration in consumers' choice of vehicle[72] and a 2007 Pew Charitable Trusts survey found that nine out of ten Americans favor tougher CAFE standards, including 91% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans.[73] In 2007, the 55 mpg Toyota Prius outsold the top-selling SUV, the 17 mpg Ford Explorer.[74][75] In late 2007, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz called hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles the "ideal solution".[76] In 2008, GM advertised fuel economy improvements and their upcoming Chevrolet Volt Extended Range Electric Vehicle,[77][78] and developed corporate branding for their fuel economy technologies, and though GM Chairman Rick Wagoner admitted not knowing which fuel efficiency technologies consumers really want, he said "we are moving fast with technologies like E‑85 (ethanol), all-electric, fuel cells, and a wide range of hybrid offers".[79][80] NHTSA's public record shows the automakers publicly express opposition to CAFE increases.[19]

text: SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate[edit]

text: The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.[12] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[81] CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca developed the idea of marketing the minivan as a station wagon alternative, while certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance with less-strict emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the promotion of the SUV.[82][83] This trend has reversed itself since the crossover has eroded SUV sales - during the mid-2000s, SUVs must conform with emission standards and a crossover is defined as a car for fuel economy purposes.

text: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and California disagreed with NHTSA that U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) precludes state-level light vehicle greenhouse gas regulations because such regulations are related to fuel economy standards. While NHTSA indicated that fuel economy is calculated by measuring vehicular carbon emissions and that nearly all of the engineering options to reduce vehicular GHG emissions also improve fuel economy, these states argued that because that the use of alternative fuels could allow greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced somewhat independently of fuel efficiency,[84] greenhouse gas standards are not related to fuel economy standards.

text: Calculations of MPG overestimated[edit]

text: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy of gasoline vehicles and underestimated diesel vehicles.[85] John DeCicco, the automotive expert for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), estimated that this results in about 20% higher actual consumption than measured CAFE goals.[86] Starting with 2008-model vehicles, the EPA has adopted a new protocol for estimating the MPG figures presented to consumers. The new protocol includes driving cycles more closely representative of today's traffic and road conditions, as well as increased air conditioner usage.[87] This change does not affect how the EPA calculates CAFE ratings; the new protocol changes only the mileage estimates provided for consumer information.[88][89]

text: NHTSA spends one-third of one percent of its budget on CAFE, or $0.014 per U.S. citizen.[90][91]

text: Low penalty[edit]

text: Some critics argue that CAFE fines do not seem to be having much impact in the fuel economy drive. [92] As noted in the 2007 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (page 23) "Several experts stated that this is (penalties) not enough of a monetary incentive for manufacturers to comply with CAFE." [93] For example, in 25 years, from 1983 to 2008, Mercedes-Benz paid penalties 21 times and BMW paid penalties 20 times. [94]

text: Currently, the CAFE penalty is $55 USD per vehicle for every 1 mpg under the standard. For the year 2006 Mercedes-Benz drew a $30.3 million penalty for violating fuel economy standards by 2.2 MPG,[94] or $122 per vehicle.[95] According to the government "fueleconomy.gov" website violating CAFE by 2.42 MPG means consuming extra 27 barrels (4.3 m3) (1,134 US gallons (4,290 L)) of mostly imported fuel in 10 years which is worth $3,490 (Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15,000 annual miles and a fuel price of $2.95 per gallon) that is 13.4% more and also it means emitting extra 14 Tons of CO2 in 10 years that is 12.7% more. These numbers are based on comparison of 2010 Mercedes ML 350 4MATIC with CAFE Unadjusted Average Fuel Economy of 21.64 MPG (this model meets 2006 CAFE requirements of 21.6 MPG) and 2010 Mercedes ML 550 4MATIC with CAFE Unadjusted Average Fuel Economy of 19.22 MPG.[96] So consuming extra $3,490 worth of mostly imported fuel and emitting extra 14 Tons of CO2 draws a penalty of only $122 for a single luxury car buyer. $122 is only 0.3% of the price of $40,000 car (average 2010 price of a luxury car). Several experts stated that this is not enough of a monetary incentive to comply with CAFE.[93]

text: CAFE penalty have increased only 10% since 1983, while cumulative inflation was 119%.[93] Thus, the CAFE penalty in 2010 is actually less than half of what it was in 1983. NHTSA officials stated that in addition to the authority the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 under the EPCA, the NHTSA has the authority to raise CAFE penalties to $100 per mpg shortfall.[93] However, the NHTSA currently does not exercise this authority.

text: CAFE Outside the United States[edit]

text: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced new light-duty vehicle fuel economy standards in November 2014 which became effective January 1, 2016 and will be fully phased in by December 31, 2020. A review of the targets will be carried by December 2018, at which time targets for 2021–2025 will be set.


document_title: School prayer

question_text: when was prayer taken out of the schools

root

text: School prayer

text: Countries that prohibit school-sponsored prayer[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: In the United States, public schools are banned from conducting religious observances such as prayer. The legal basis for this prohibition is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires that

tag: p

text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

text: The first part of the amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, while the second part ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is known as the Free Exercise Clause.

text: Though each of these clauses originally applied only to the central US government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the scope of the entire First Amendment to all levels of government, including the state level,[1] thus compelling states and their subject schools to adopt an equally detached approach to religion in schools.

text: School prayer prior to 1962[edit]

text: In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common practice for public schools to open with an oral prayer or Bible reading.[2][not in citation given] Catholics would sometimes object to the distinct Protestant observations performed in the local schools. For instance, in the Edgerton Bible Case (Weiss v. District Board (1890)), the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Catholics who objected to the use of the King James Bible in Wisconsin public schools. This ruling was based on the state constitution and only applied in Wisconsin.

text: A Turning Point: The "Regents' Prayer" and Engel v. Vitale[edit]

text: The media and popular culture often erroneously credit atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair with removing school prayer from US public schools, when the case against recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Baltimore schools was decided by the Supreme Court in 1963. A more significant case had reached the Supreme Court one year prior, suddenly changing the legal climate for school prayer in the US.[3]

text: In 1955, the New York Board of Regents developed a prayer recommended (but not required) for the school districts under its purview. The prayer was relatively short: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."[1][4] The board stated that the prayer would "combat juvenile delinquency and counter the spread of Communism."[4]

text: Seven years later, Steven I. Engel, a Jew, was upset to see his son’s hands clasped and his head bent in prayer. He told his son that this was “not the way we say prayers.” Engel, a founding member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, would bring action along with Daniel Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons, and Lawrence Roth, all parents of children in the Long Island, New York public school system, against Union Free School District No. 9 for its adoption and subsequent prescription of the so-called "Regent's prayer", arguing that it constituted the state-sponsored establishment of religion in violation of citizens’ First Amendment rights via the Fourteenth Amendment.[5]

text: Use of the Regent's prayer would be initially upheld in both New York State Court and in the New York Court of Appeals, prompting Engels to petition the US Supreme Court in the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962. With its 8–1 vote to make public recitation of the Regents' Prayer in public schools unlawful, the U.S. Supreme Court made its first-ever decision on prayer in public schools. It made its second in 1963—the Abington School District v. Schempp ruling, which made the corporate reading of the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unlawful in public schools.[3]

text: 1963 and after[edit]

text: In these two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in US schools. While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other public school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.[6] Madalyn Murray's lawsuit, Murray v. Curlett, contributed to the removal of compulsory Bible reading from the public schools of the United States, and has had lasting and significant effects.

text: Until the lawsuit, it was commonplace for students to participate in many types of religious activities while at school, including religious instruction itself. Nonreligious students were compelled to participate in such activities and were not usually given any opportunity to opt out. The Murray suit was combined with an earlier case, so the Court might have acted without Murray's intervention. With the success of the lawsuit, the intent of the Constitution with regard to the relationship between church and state again came under critical scrutiny and has remained there to this day. While students do continue to pray in public schools, even in organized groups such as "See You at the Pole", the lawsuit disallowed schools from including prayer as a compulsory activity required of every student. The success of O'Hair's lawsuit led to subsequent lawsuits by Mormon and Catholic families in Texas in 2000 to limit compulsory prayer at school-sponsored football games.

text: Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that, in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause, any practice sponsored within state-run schools (or other public state-sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:[7]

text:
Have a secular purpose;
Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

tag: ol

text: Controversy[edit]

text: Reactions to Engel and Abington were widely negative, and many school districts and states have attempted to reestablish school-sponsored prayer in different forms since 1962.[8] Since the 1990s, controversy in the courts has tended to revolve around prayer at school-sponsored extracurricular activities. Examples can be seen in the cases of Lee v. Weisman (1992) and Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), where public prayers at graduation ceremonies and those conducted via public address system prior to high school games (at state school facilities before a school-gathered audience) were, respectively, ruled unconstitutional.

text: Despite their attempts to present a clear stance on school-sponsored religious activity, Engel, Abington, and the cases for which these serve as precedent are cited by some proponents of school prayer as evidence of a contradiction between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.[9] While the Establishment Clause proscribes the state sponsorship of religion, the Free Exercise Clause forbids state interference in individual religious exercise. Where a state entity moves to accommodate the right to individual religious expression under the latter clause, opponents of that "expression" may cite such accommodation as state "promotion" of one religious activity over another.[10] Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, the courts have consistently stated that students' setting forth of religious views through prayer cannot be forbidden unless such activity can be shown to cause disruption in the school, yet it remains beyond the scope of the state to require such practice.[11] Thus, anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disrupt others from doing their work.

text: The United States Supreme Court: A Political and Legal Analysis discussed the results of a 1991 survey, stating that: "The Court's school prayer decisions were, and still are, deeply unpopular with the public, many politicians and most religions organizations. 95 percent of the population believe in God and some 60 percent belong to a religious organization. In a 1991 opinion poll, 78 percent of Americans support the reintroduction of school prayer."[12] As a result of public support for school prayer in the United States, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States reports, "the public's support for school prayer was translated by various state legislatures into statutes aiding religious schools and practices."[13] Analysis of multiple polls since the 1970s by sociologist Philip Schwadel showed support for school prayer dipped slightly but remains popular with the majority of Americans, with a recent 2011 poll showing 65 percent support.[14]

text: Canada[edit]

text: British Columbia[edit]

text: Prior to 1944, in British Columbia, the Public Schools Act (1872) permitted the use of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing school. In 1944, the government of British Columbia amended the Public Schools Act to provide for compulsory Bible reading at the opening of the school day, to be followed by a compulsory recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. This amendment appeared as section 167 of the Public Schools Act, and read as follows:[15]

text: 167. All public schools shall be opened by the reading, without explanation or comment, of a passage of Scripture to be selected from readings prescribed or approved by the Council of Public Instruction. The reading of the passage of Scripture shall be followed by the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, but otherwise the schools shall be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles. The highest morality shall be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed shall be taught. 1948, c.42, s.167

text: The compulsory nature of the Bible reading and prayer recitation was slightly modified by regulations drawn up by the Council of Public Instruction. These regulations provided that either a teacher or student who has conscientious ground for objecting to the religious observances may be excused from them. The procedure to be followed in such cases was outlined in the regulations, which follow in full:

text: Division (15)—Scripture Readings (Section 167)

text: 15.01 Where a teacher sends a written notice to the Board of School Trustees or official trustee by whom he is employed that he has conscientious objections to conducting the. ceremony of reading prescribed selections from the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer (as provided by Section 167 of the Public Schools Act), he shall be excused from such duty, and in such case it shall be the duty of the Board of School Trustees or official trustee concerned to arrange with the Principal to have the ceremony conducted by some other teacher in the school, or by a school trustee, or, where neither of these alternatives is possible, by one of the senior pupils of the school or by some other suitable person other than an ordained member of a religious sect or denomination.

text: 15.02 Where the parent or guardian of any pupil attending a public school sends a written notice to the teacher of the pupil stating that for conscientious reasons he does not wish the pupil to attend the ceremony of reading prescribed selections from the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the opening of school, the teacher shall excuse the pupil from attendance at such ceremony and at his discretion may assign the pupil some other useful employment at school during that period, but the pupil so excused shall not be deprived of any other benefits of the school by reason of his non-attendance at the ceremony.

text: In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms received royal assent. Section 2 of the charter guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of religion trumped Section 167 of the Public Schools Act (1872). Sixteen years later in 1996, based on precedent that would be established in Ontario (1989), required recitation of the Lord’s Prayer as outlined in the Public Schools Act would be held to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

text: Ontario[edit]

text: The challenges to Christian opening and closing exercises occurred mainly in Ontario with the crucial case being fought in The Ontario Court of Appeal in 1988.[16]

text: Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the use of the Lord’s Prayer in opening exercises in public schools offended the Charter s. 2(a). 1988. (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 641, 29 O.A.C. 23 (C.A.). Education regulations did not require the use of the Lord's Prayer and there was an exemption provision. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the regulation infringed religious freedom because schools could use only the Lord's Prayer rather than a more inclusive approach. It was argued that the exemption provision effectively stigmatized children and coerced them into a religious observance which was offensive to them.

text: The Ontario Court of Appeal was persuaded by the argument that the need to seek exemption from Christian exercises is itself a form of religious discrimination. The judges described as insensitive the position of the respondents that it was beneficial for the minority children to confront the fact of their difference from the majority.

text: Russow v. British Columbia[edit]

text: In 1989, Joan Russow challenged, in the British Columbia Supreme Court, the Public Schools Act’s requirement that in British Columbia all public schools were to be opened with the Lord’s Prayer and a Bible reading. The argument was similar to the Zylberberg case and the result was the same: The offending words in the Public Schools Act were removed as being inconsistent with freedom of conscience and religion guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further following the Zylberberg case to strike down use of the Lord’s Prayer in schools,[17] the British Columbia Supreme Court incorporated the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Zylberberg in its entirety.

text: From 1871 to 1989, observance of school prayer had declined.

text: With the unfavorable court decision, the requirement for Christian morning exercises was replaced with the following clauses found in the School Act (1996) in British Columbia.[18]

text: Conduct:

text: 76 (1) All schools and Provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and nonsectarian principles.

text: (2) The highest morality must be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed is to be – taught in a school or Provincial school.

text: France[edit]

text: As a declared 'laïque' (roughly 'religiously neutral', secular) state, France has no school prayers. Instead, public servants are advised to keep their religious faith private, and may be censured if they display it too openly. The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools goes beyond restricting prayer in schools and bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by pupils in public primary and secondary schools.

text: Turkey[edit]

text: The predominantly Muslim country of Turkey is in the public sphere a strongly secular nation. In this regard, it is much like France, on whose system of laïcism its founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk modelled the rules on religion when he reformed his country in the early 20th century. School prayer is therefore unknown, and suspected religious motivations can cause serious difficulties for public servants. Despite its primarily secular stance, however, courses of religion and morals (which are dominantly Islamic) are compulsory to all students during the last years of elementary and throughout high school. In these instances, various Islamic prayers and verses are both taught and tested for.

text: Countries that permit school-sponsored prayer[edit]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: In England and Wales, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that all pupils in state schools must take part in a daily act of collective worship, unless their parents request that they be excused from attending.[19] The majority of these acts of collective worship are required to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character", with two exceptions:

text:
Religious schools, which should provide worship appropriate to the school's religion (although most religious schools in the UK are Christian.)
Schools where the local education authority's Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education has determined that Christian worship would not be appropriate for part or all of the school.

tag: ul

text: Although there is a statutory requirement for schools to hold a daily act of collective worship, many do not. Ofsted's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that 80% of secondary schools are not providing daily worship for all pupils.[20]

text: Ongoing debate[edit]

text: Arguments for and against school prayer[edit]

text: The issue of school prayer remains contentious even where courts as diverse as those in Canada, the United States, Russia, and Poland attempt to strike a balance between religious and secular activity in state-sponsored arenas.[11] Some arguments have held that religion in schools is both an effective sociomoral tool[21][22] as well as a valuable means to psychological stability.[23] On the opposing side, others have argued that prayer has no place in a classroom where impressionable students are continually subject to influence by the majority.[16] The latter kind of claim holds that, to the extent that a public school itself promotes the majority religion, the state is guilty of coercive interference in the lives of the individual.[24]

text: In recent years, programs derived from yoga, a Hindu religious practice, have been introduced into public schools in the U.S. Advocates for the programs say they help children to relax and concentrate, but critics counter that the programs violate the separation of church and state.[25][26]

text: "Moment of silence"[edit]

text: Despite ongoing debate, there are some instances where religious freedom and secular stability have been temporarily balanced. In the United States, some administrations have introduced a "moment of silence" or "moment of reflection" in which a student may, if he or she wishes to, offer a silent prayer. The US Supreme Court decision in Wallace v. Jaffree (1984) held that a moment of silence in schools for the purpose of individual prayer or meditation constituted a valid application of the Free Exercise Clause, while a moment of silence for the clear intended purpose of a state-approved devotional activity constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause.[8] In this same case, the issue of school prayer was further complicated by a distinction made between a public assembly attended by participants of their own free will, and a public event where attendance is legally required. A voluntarily attended Congress may open sessions with a prayer, but schools full of public pupils may not. Here the US Supreme Court has interpreted the issue as revolving around the degree of a government’s ability to indoctrinate its citizens.[8] If it appears that participants at a state-sponsored event are more likely to influence the State itself, courts may treat prayer as "legislative prayer". If, on the other hand, the State is more likely to influence participants at its events, courts may treat prayer as "state-sponsored" prayer and thereby rule it unconstitutional.[27]


document_title: Garibi Hatao

question_text: the slogan garibi hatao (removal of poverty)was adopted during the period of —–

question_tokens: the slogan garibi hatao ( removal of poverty ) was adopted during the period of -- --

text: Garibi Hatao

text: Garibi Hatao desh bachao ("Abolish poverty, save the nation") was the theme and slogan of Indira Gandhi's 1971 election bid and later also used by her son Rajiv Gandhi.[1] The slogan and the proposed anti-poverty programs that came with it were designed to give Gandhi an independent national support, based on rural and urban poor, which would allow her to by-pass the dominant rural castes both in and out of state and local government; likewise the urban commercial class. And, for their part, the previously voiceless poor would at last gain both political worth and political weight.

text: The programs created through garibi hatao, though carried out locally, were funded, developed, supervised, and staffed by Government officials in New Delhi and Congress Party officials. All in all, garibi hatao did little and accomplished less: only about 4% of all funds allocated for economic development went to the three main anti-poverty programs, and precious few of these ever reached the 'poorest of the poor', but it did help secure Gandhi's election.[citation needed] It was part of the 5th Five-Year Plan.

text: However other parties used to say that the slogan must be changed to 'Garib Hatao' as this is what Congress was doing at that time.[citation needed]

text: India is still trying to fight poverty for the past 70 years.


document_title: Spider-Man (1994 TV series)

question_text: who voices spider man in the animated series

text: Spider-Man (1994 TV series)

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedFirst airedLast aired113November 19, 1994 (1994-11-19)June 11, 1995 (1995-06-11)214September 9, 1995 (1995-09-09)February 24, 1996 (1996-02-24)314April 27, 1996 (1996-04-27)November 23, 1996 (1996-11-23)411February 1, 1997 (1997-02-01)August 2, 1997 (1997-08-02)513September 12, 1997 (1997-09-12)January 31, 1998 (1998-01-31)

tag: table

text: The series focuses on Spider-Man and his alter ego Peter Parker during his college years at Empire State University. As the story begins, Peter has already gained his superpowers and is a part-time freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle. The show features most of Spider-Man's classic villains, including the Kingpin, the Green Goblin, the Lizard, the Shocker, Doctor Octopus, Mysterio, the Scorpion, Rhino, the Vulture and Venom. Over the course of the series the single Peter contends with the romantic love interests of Mary Jane Watson, Felicia Hardy and her alter ego, the Black Cat. The show also features appearances from various other Marvel superheroes; including the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Daredevil, Blade, Doctor Strange, the Punisher and Captain America.

text: Adaptations[edit]

text: A large number of storylines and events from the comics are loosely adapted in the series, such as:

text: Season 1[edit]

text:
The first episode "Night of The Lizard" is loosely based on "Face-to-Face with... the Lizard!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #6 (November 1963).
The episode "Return of the Spider Slayer" borrows elements from the comic books including the way Spencer Smythe treated Spider-Man and Jameson is a very similar way to how Alistair Smythe treated them in "24 Hours till Doomsday!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #192 (May 1979) and Mary Jane uses her famous line from her first comic appearance: "Face it, Tiger. You just hit the jackpot.", from "The Birth of a Super-Hero!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #42 (November 1966).
The episode "The Menace of Mysterio" loosely based on "The Menace of...Mysterio!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #13 (June 1964).
The episode "The Sting of the Scorpion" is based on "Spidey Strikes Back!"/"The Coming of the Scorpion! OR: Spidey Battles Scorpey!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #19-20 (December 1964-January 1965).
The dream sequence from the episode "The Alien Costume, Part One" where the symbiote and the Spider-Man costume fight over Peter Parker is adapted from "The Sinister Secret of Spider-Man's New Costume!" in Amazing Spider-Man  #258 (November 1984).
The end of the episode "The Alien Costume, Part Two" where Spider-Man uses the bell to get free from the symbiote is adapted from "'Til Death Do Us Part!" in Web of Spider-Man #1 (April, 1985).
The beginning of the episode "The Alien Costume, Part Three" where Eddie Brock has a wall covered with newspaper clippings of Spider-Man and turns into Venom swearing vengeance on Spider-Man is adapted from "Chance Encounter" in Amazing Spider-Man #298 (March 1988).

text: Season 2[edit]

text:
The episodes "The Insidious Six" and "Battle of the Insidious Six" are based on "The Sinister Six!" in The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1 (October 1964).
The episode "Hydro-Man" is based on "The Coming of Hydroman!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #212 (January 1981).
The episodes "Morbius" and "Enter the Punisher" are both based on "The Spider or the Man?"/"A Monster Called Morbius!"/"Vampire at Large!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #100-102 (September–November 1971). The Man-Spider plot is loosely adapted from "Fast Descent into Hell!"/"To Sacrifice My Soul..." in Marvel Fanfare #1-2 (March 1982 and May 1982).
The episode "Tablet of Time" is based on "The Web Closes!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #73 (June 1969).
The episode "Ravages of Time" is based on "If This Be Bedlam!"/"Death Without Warning!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #74-75 (July- August 1969) and "Lifetheft Part One: The Wings of Age"/"Lifetheft Part Two: The Thief of Years"/"Lifetheft Part Three: The Sadness of Truth" in The Amazing Spider-Man #386-388 (February–April 1994).

text: Season 3[edit]

text:
The episode "Make a Wish" is based on "Doc Ock Wins!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #55 (December 1967) and "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #248 (January 1984).
The episode "Attack of the Octobot" is based on "Disaster!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #56 (January 1968) and "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #248 (January 1984).
The episode "Rocket Racer" is based on "The Fiend from the Fire!" in Amazing Spider-Man #172 (September 1977) and "The Rocket Racer's Back in Town!"/"...And Where the Big Wheel Stops, Nobody Knows!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #182-183 (July–August 1978).
The episode "The Spot" is based on "True Confessions!"/"Spider on the Spot!" in Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man #98-99 (January–February 1985).
The episode "Goblin War!" is based on "The Goblin War" in The Amazing Spider-Man #312 (February 1989).
The episode "Turning Point" is based on "How Green Was My Goblin!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #39 (August 1966) and "The Night Gwen Stacy Died"/"The Goblin's Last Stand!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #121-122 (June–July 1973).

text: Season 4[edit]

text:
The episode "Guilty" is based on "Guilty!"/"Lock-Up" in The Spectacular Spider-Man #150-151 (May – June 1989) and "Crash Out!" in The Spectacular Spider-Man #155 (October 1989).
The episode "The Black Cat" is based on "Never Let the Black Cat Cross Your Path!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #194 (July 1979).
The episode The Return of the Green Goblin" is based on "The Green Goblin Lives Again!"/"The Green Goblin Strikes!" in The Amazing Spider-Man #136-137 (September–October 1974).

text: Season 5[edit]

text:
The episode "The Wedding" is loosely based on "The Wedding" in The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21 (September 1987).
The "Six Forgotten Warriors" saga is loosely based on "The Parents of Peter Parker!" in The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 (November 1968) and "The Assassin-Nation Plot" storyline from The Amazing Spider-Man #320-325 (September 1989 to November 1989).
The "Secret Wars" trilogy adapts the 1984 limited series Marvel Super-Heroes Secret Wars (May 1984 to April 1985).

text: Cast and characters[edit]

text: Main voice cast[edit]

text:
Christopher Daniel Barnes – Peter Parker / Spider-Man
Edward Asner – J. Jonah Jameson
Jennifer Hale – Felicia Hardy / Black Cat
Sara Ballantine – Mary Jane Watson
Roscoe Lee Browne – Wilson Fisk / Kingpin
Linda Gary / Julie Bennett – Aunt May Parker
Gary Imhoff – Harry Osborn / Green Goblin II
Rodney Saulsberry – Joseph "Robbie" Robertson
Mark Hamill – Jason Macendale / Hobgoblin

text: Production[edit]

text: While Marvel's X-Men animated series was being produced by Saban, Spider-Man was produced by the newly formed Marvel Films Animation; it was the only series that in-house studio produced, but was animated by Tokyo Movie Shinsha.[4] For many years, the series was the second longest-running Marvel show created, after X-Men, as well as the longest-running series based on Spider-Man (until Ultimate Spider-Man surpassed its record in 2015). In some episodes, realistic guns were depicted, but only in flashbacks, such as the showing of guns being fired during a flashback about The Destroyer's origins where his wife was killed in the crossfire during a crime. In November 2014 podcasts, Semper clarified that the show was not censored as much as any other show at the time and that every time this has been brought up to him, he feels it has been blown out of proportion;[5] Semper said that Marvel had no creative control on the TV series because Marvel at the time was in a tough time and close to bankruptcy. In addition, Semper stated that Stan Lee had influence on the show in the first thirteen episodes. The series is currently owned and distributed by The Walt Disney Company (Marvel's parent company), which acquired all Fox Kids-related properties from News Corporation and Saban International in 2001.

text: Writing staff[edit]

text: Producer John Semper was the primary credited writer on the show, receiving some sort of writing credit (usually a story, co-story or co-writing credit) on 60 of the 65 produced episodes. He wrote 8 episodes solo; many of his story credits were actually adaptations of previously published comic book stories.

text: Mark Hoffmeier was a frequent contributor, receiving credits on 16 episodes, while Stan Berkowitz was credited on 9.

text: Many of the other series writers had previously worked on Batman: The Animated Series, including Brynne Stephens, Marv Wolfman, Gerry Conway, Marty Isenberg and Robert N. Skir, Len Wein, and Sean Catherine Derek. A number of the writers had experience writing the Spider-Man comic book, songs them Conway, J. M. DeMatteis, Jan Strnad and Carl Potts.

text: Animation[edit]

text: To reproduce New York City's appearance, background illustrators undertook a large amount of visual research by using photo archives from above New York, particularly rooftops. Maps were consulted for references and buildings were faithfully reproduced.

text: It has been reported that the animation cels depicting Manhattan's Pan Am Building (recently renamed the MetLife Building) were scrapped after being complete because the California-based art staff learned the Midtown landmark had been given a new sign more than a year earlier.

text: The animation staff were directed to populate the city with cars and crowds on the street level. Semper believed that was one of the limitations of earlier Spider-Man animated projects.

text: Originally, Marvel Films planned to make the backgrounds completely CGI while Spider-Man 'webslinged' around New York, yet due to budget constraints were forced to use traditional cel based animation while occasionally using CGI backgrounds. As well, reuse of animation became more common as the series progressed, which also included reuse of animation involving a character speaking (these scenes were sometimes slowed down in order to better match the actor's voice to the animation).

text: Music[edit]

text: Marvel outsourced the show's music to distributors Saban Entertainment, who were also responsible for the music in the concurrent X-Men cartoon airing on Fox Kids. The theme for the series was performed by Joe Perry of the hard rock band Aerosmith, although the song was written by Shuki Levy. Levy, Kussa Mahchi and Udi Harpaz are credited as composers of the orchestral background score.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: It garnered exceptionally high ratings for a Saturday morning cartoon and shortly after its premiere was the highest rated and most popular children's television show in America. It also received wide critical praise for its portrayal of many different storylines from the comics.

text: Its ultimate cancellation after 65 episodes was not due to ratings trouble, but due to disagreements between executive producer Avi Arad and network head Margaret Loesch that forced the show to be cancelled. [6]

text: Awards[edit]

text: Writer / Producer John Semper Jr. won an Annie Award in 1995 for Best Individual Achievement for Writing in the Field of Animation for the episode "Day of the Chameleon". Spider-Man was also nominated for one 1996 Image Award for Outstanding Animated/Live-Action/Dramatic Youth or Children's Series/Special.[7]

text: Merchandising[edit]

text: Three comic book series based on the TV series were produced:

text:
Spider-Man Adventures (December 1994 to February 1996):[8] the first 13 issues each adapted one episode from the first season, and the last two issues were original stories. Spider-Man Adventures #1-4 was later reprinted in Kellogg's Froot Loops Mini-Comics #1-4.[9]
Adventures of Spider-Man (April 1996 to March 1997): featuring new stories based on the series.[10] Adventures of Spider-Man was later reprinted in Spectacular Spider-Man (UK Magazine) #11 – 21 from August 1996 to May 1997.[11]
Marvel Adventures (April 1997 to September 1998):[12] anthology featuring various animated versions of Marvel characters—Spider-Man only appeared sporadically.

text: A number of video games based on the series were also produced:

text:
Spider-Man Cartoon Maker for the PC
Spider-Man Animated Series for the Super NES and Genesis

text: Electronic versions of classic Spider-Man comics were released by Marvel that included narration by Christopher Daniel Barnes and featured animation and theme music from this series. Spider-Man novels inspired by selected episodes were also released. A wide variety of themed merchandise (lunch boxes, cereals, clothing, etc.) was produced. McDonald's produced a themed line of Happy Meal toys for the show. However, this paled in comparison to the extensive official toy line that ran over eight series, and included a staggering amount of play sets and vehicles and actually lasted longer than the television series itself.

text: Release availability[edit]

text: Despite the fact that the show ended in 1998, the success of the live-action Spider-Man films have sparked more interest in new fans, allowing the series to air in reruns due to its new owners: The Walt Disney Company.

text: In February 2012, Marvel.com uploaded every episode for streaming purposes, although they have now been removed.

text: The entire series is available for instant streaming on Canadian Netflix as of July 28, 2016. The entire series is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime Instant Video, Hulu Plus, and Vudu

text: VHS and DVD releases[edit]

text: Region 1

text: During the series' run, some episodes were released on VHS. These were from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

text:
VHS Name
Episode Titles
Release Date
Publisher
Stock Number
Notes

The Hobgoblin
"The Hobgoblin" Parts 1 & 2
July 2, 1997[13]
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
4176
Trailers:FOX Kids Video Promo (1997)Casper: A Spirited Beginning (1997) FOX Toons Interactive CD-ROM Promo (1997)

text: In the late 1990s, another selection of VHS compilations were released by Marvel Films/New World Entertainment (these tapes were distributed in Canada by Telegenic Entertainment). These releases featured episodes edited into 70-80, 90-100 minute movies based on the particular story arc.

text:
VHS Name
Episode Titles
Release Date
Publisher
Stock Number
Notes

The Venom Saga
"The Alien Costume" Parts 1 & 2 & 3
November 12, 1996[14]
Marvel Films/New World Entertainment
00103
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 60 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Based on the all-new 1996 Spider-Man animated television series

Revenge of the Goblins
"The Hobgoblin" Parts 1 & 2"Enter the Green Goblin""Goblin War!"
January 28, 1997[15]
00123
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 80 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:Spider-Man: The Venom Saga (1994)Dragon Flyz: Day of the Dragon (1996)

Spider Slayer
"The Spider Slayer""Return of the Spider Slayer""Kraven the Hunter""The Return of Kraven"
March 18, 1997[16]
00143
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 80 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:Spider-Man: The Venom Saga (1994)Dragon Flyz: Day of the Dragon (1996)
Special Bonus: Kraven the Hunter Meets Spidey

Insidious Six
"The Insidious Six""Battle of the Insidious Six""Hydro-Man"
June 17, 1997[17]
00163
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 100 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:The Incredible Hulk: Return of the Beast (1996)Dragon Flyz: Day of the Dragon (1996)
Special Bonus: Includes two episodes of Iron Man: "The Beast Within""Cell of Iron"

Mutant Agenda
"The Mutant Agenda""Mutants' Revenge""Morbius"
September 9, 1997[18]
00183
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 100 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:Dragon Flyz: Day of the Dragon (1996)The Incredible Hulk: Return of the Beast (1996)
Special Bonus: Includes two episodes of Iron Man: "Iron Man to the Second Power" Parts 1 & 2

Tablet of Time
"Enter the Punisher""Duel of the Hunters""Tablet of Time""Ravages of Time"
November 4, 1997[19]
00203
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 80 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:Franklin (1997)The Incredible Hulk: Return of the Beast (1996)
Special Bonus: Includes the final episode of Spider-Man: Mutant Agenda
And Contains Various Commercials At The End Of The Movie:Spider-Man: Web Splashers Action Figures Advertisement (1997)Spider-Man: Spider Wars Playset and Action Figures Advertisement (1996)

Neogenic Nightmare
"Blade, the Vampire Hunter""The Immortal Vampire""Shrieks of the Vulture""The Final Nightmare"
May 19, 1998[20]
00213
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 80 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains Various Commercials At The End Of The Movie:Spider-Man: Web Flyers: Sneak Attack Action Figures Advertisement (1998)Spider-Man: Web Blaster Refills and Web Fluids Advertisement (1997)

Forgotten Warriors
"Six Forgotten Warriors, Chapter I""Six Forgotten Warriors, Chapter II: Unclaimed Legacy""Six Forgotten Warriors, Chapter III: Secrets of the Six""Six Forgotten Warriors, Chapter IV: The Six Fight Again""Six Forgotten Warriors, Chapter V: The Price of Heroism"
October 27, 1998[21]
00223
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 100 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains The Following Previews At The Beginning:Franklin (1997)
Based on the all-new 1996 Spider-Man animated television series
And Contains Various Commercials At The End Of The Movie:Spider-Man: Spider Force Web Car Vehicles and Action Figures Advertisement (1997)Spider-Man: Web Blaster Refills and Web Fluids Advertisement (1997)Spider-Man: Web Flyers: Sneak Attack Action Figures Advertisement (1998)

The Sins of the Fathers
"Framed""The Man Without Fear""The Ultimate Slayer""The Spot"
May 18, 1999[22]
00233
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 80 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.
Contains Various Commercials At The End Of The Movie:Spider-Man: Web Copter Vehicle and Web Fluids Advertisement (1998)Spider-Man: Flip 'n' Trap Playset and Action Figures Advertisement (1998)Spider-Man: Spider Force Web Car Vehicles and Action Figures Advertisement (1997)Spider-Man: Web Blaster Refills and Web Fluids Advertisement (1997)

Secret Wars
"Secret Wars, Chapter I: Arrival""Secret Wars, Chapter II: The Gauntlet of the Red Skull""Secret Wars, Chapter III: Doom""Spider Wars, Chapter IV: I Really, Really Hate Clones""Spider Wars, Chapter V: Farewell, Spider-Man"
October 26, 1999[23]
00243
This Tape Is In SP Mode.
Contains 100 Minutes Of A Feature Length Movie.

text: To date, the only VHS and DVD releases of the series in the U.S. have been several volume sets from Buena Vista Home Entertainment that feature 4-5 episodes each.

text:
Title
Release Date
Stock Number

Spider-Man: The Ultimate Villain Showdown[24]
30 April 2002
2591125898

Episodes:
The Sins of the Fathers Chapter II: Make a Wish
The Sins of the Fathers Chapter III: Attack of the Octobot
The Sins of the Fathers Chapter IV: Enter the Green Goblin
The Sins of the Fathers Chapter V: The Rocket Racer
Features[25]

1967 Classic Episode: "The Origin of Spider-Man"

Spider-Man: The Return of the Green Goblin[26]
29 October 2002
2812628128

Episodes:
The Sins of the Father: Chapter XII: The Spot
The Sins of the Father: Chapter XIII: Goblin War!
The Sins of the Father: Chapter XIV: The Turning Point
Partners in Danger: Chapter I: Guilty
Features[27]

Partners in Danger: Chapter VIII: The Return of the Green Goblin (WARNING: This is missing its background music in the VHS version.)
1967 Classic Episode: "The Terrible Triumph of Doctor Octopus/Magic Malice"

Daredevil vs. Spider-Man[28]
11 February 2003
2852028521

Episodes:
The Sins of the Father: Chapter VI: Framed
The Sins of the Father: Chapter VII: The Man Without Fear
The Sins of the Father: Chapter VIII: The Ultimate Slayer
The Sins of the Father: Chapter IX: Tombstone
Features[29]

Classic 1966 Bonus Episode: "King Pinned" - Featuring Kingpin
Fantastic Four Bonus Episode, "And a Blind Man Shall Lead Them" - Featuring Daredevil (DVD version only)

The Ultimate Spider-Man Collection[30]
2 November 2003

DVD Sets:
Spider-Man: The Ultimate Villain Showdown
Spider-Man: The Return of the Green Goblin
Daredevil vs. Spider-Man

Spider-Man vs. Doc Ock[31]
29 June 2004
3457134572

Episodes:
Doctor Octopus: Armed and Dangerous
Partners in Danger: Chapter II: The Cat
Partners in Danger: Chapter III: The Black Cat
Partners in Danger: Chapter V: Partners
Features[29]

A classic 1967 bonus episode: The Power of Dr. Octopus/Sub-Zero for Spidey

Spider-Man: The Venom Saga[32]
7 June 2005
3489234893

DVD Sets:
The Alien Costume, Part One
The Alien Costume, Part Two
The Alien Costume, Part Three
The Sins of the Fathers, Chapter X: Venom Returns
The Sins of the Fathers, Chapter XI: Carnage

text: Region 2

text: In the UK, Sweden, and Germany, Clear Vision Ltd. has released all five seasons on DVD as of October 19, 2009.

text:
DVD Name

Ep #

Release Date

Complete Season 1

13

June 22, 2009[33]

Complete Season 2

14

August 3, 2009[34]

Complete Season 3

14

August 17, 2009[35]

Complete Season 4

11

September 14, 2009[36]

Complete Season 5

13

October 19, 2009[37]

The Complete Collection

65

November 11, 2011[38]

text: Other releases

text:
A Canadian DVD containing three episodes from the "Mutant Agenda" episodes. This is a reissue of the 1997 Marvel-New World/Telegenic VHS release (and it was mastered from one of those VHS releases); as a "Bonus" two episodes from the 1990s Iron Man TV series are included, just like on the VHS release. (Please note there are no audio/subtitle selections.)
Canadians also received another DVD release of the first season two-parter "The Hobgoblin".  This was a re-release of a 2002 VHS release by Disney; the video quality of the episodes on the DVD is that of a VHS transfer.  There are no bonus features or audio/subtitle selections on this DVD either.
A VCD release by Magnavision Home Video.
A boxed set of all the DVDs released in Poland, simply entitled "Spider-Man: 5 DVD Set". The front of the box features the same graphics as "The Ultimate Villain Showdown".
Several two-episode DVDs released by Marvel in 2002 prior to the acquisition by Disney.
3 DVDs with 2 episodes each were released regionally for Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia with Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian dubs on them in 2005.
The entire first season is available on Xbox Live and iTunes through Disney XD. All five seasons are also currently available for digital purchase on Vudu.
The entire series is currently available on Hulu Plus and Amazon Video.
There were also unlicensed DVDs that had The Adventure Continues on them that contained two episodes from most of the movies that were released by Marvel Films/New World Entertainment. For example, one was Spider-Man - Blade the Vampire Hunter which contained two episodes which were "Blade, the Vampire Hunter" and "The Immortal Vampire", a two-part story episode from the second season, making it like a movie based on the toy line, Spider-Man: Vampire Wars.

text: Bootleg DVDs of the show have become popular among fans due to a lack of official DVD releases. The bootlegs feature all of the episodes but some of them have low video quality and watermarks. This is likely to change as the entire series becomes available in the UK. The series is currently the 9th most wanted unreleased DVD at TVShowsOnDVD.com.[39]

text: Spiritual successor[edit]

text: On November 1, 2014 at the Comikaze Expo, where the show's 20th anniversary was celebrated, John Semper Jr. revealed that much of the cast and crew of Spider-Man, himself included, had agreed to reunite for a new crowdfunded series entitled "War of the Rocket Men".[40][41][42][43] In addition, in late 2014, Semper Jr started a website (cartoonspiderman.com) that features behind-the-scenes content, podcasts about the show, a link to the Facebook page that Semper regularly posts on and more. On April 16, 2016, Semper's YouTube account posted a video in which he revealed that he had written a short story following up on the series, detailing Peter finding Mary Jane, referring to the story as "an autobiographical fan-fiction" in which he reminisced on what it was like writing the last episodes of the series, as well as detailing how Peter and Mary Jane would have been reunited, adding one could think of it as "the lost episode of Spider-Man: The Animated Series". Semper explained that he would be releasing this as a perk on a crowd-funding campaign for War of the Rocket Men. The video also featured the returning voices of Christopher Daniel Barnes and Sara Ballantine as Spider-Man/Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson respectively in an audio promo prologue entitled "Peter Finds Mary Jane".[citation needed]


document_title: You Take My Breath Away (Rex Smith song)

question_text: who sings the song you take my breath away

text:
"You Take My Breath Away"

Single by Rex Smith

from the album Sooner or Later

B-side
"You're Never Too Old to Rock & Roll"

Released
April 1979

Format
7" single

Genre
Soft rock

Length
3:19

Label
Columbia

Songwriter(s)
Bruce Hart
Stephen Lawrence

Producer(s)
Charles Calello
Stephen Lawrence

Rex Smith singles chronology

"You Take My Breath Away"
(1979)
"Everlasting Love"
(1981)

"You Take My Breath Away"
(1979)
"Everlasting Love"
(1981)

text: "You Take My Breath Away" is the 1979 debut single by singer-actor Rex Smith and the first release from his third studio album Sooner or Later which is also featured in the 1979 made-for-television film of the same title starring Smith and Denise Miller. It was produced by Charles Calello and Stephen Lawrence, and written by Lawrence and Bruce Hart.

text: The song reached number ten on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 in 1979 for two weeks (dated on June 23)[1] and spent two weeks at number seven on the Cash Box Top 100.[2] It also peaked at number 11 on the Adult Contemporary chart.[3] The song was certified Gold.[4] In Canada, "You Take My Breath Away" reached as high as number three.[5]