Teacher: In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING USE OF FACILITIES
TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Business entity.--The term ''business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint
venture, or other form of enterprise.
(2) Facility.--The term ''facility'' means any real
property, including any building, improvement, or appurtenance.
(3) Gross negligence.--The term ''gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge (at
the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ''intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the health
or well-being of another person.
(5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ''nonprofit
organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from
tax under section 501(a) of such Code; or
(B) any not-for-profit organization organized and
conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for
charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or
health purposes.
(6) State.--The term ''State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such State,
territory, or possession.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to any
injury or death occurring at a facility of the business entity
in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit
organization if--
(A) the use occurs outside of the scope of business
of the business entity;
(B) such injury or death occurs during a period
that such facility is used by the nonprofit
organization; and
(C) the business entity authorized the use of such
facility by the nonprofit organization.
(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
(A) with respect to civil liability under Federal
and State law; and
(B) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization
pays for the use of a facility.
(c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to an
injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business
entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct,
including any misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in section
2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been convicted in
any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent that
such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that this Act
shall not preempt any State law that provides additional
protection from liability for a business entity for an injury
or death with respect to which conditions under subparagraphs
(A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1) apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act shall
not apply to any civil action in a State court against a business
entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State
enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
Solution: Shields a business entity from civil liability relating to any injury or death occurring at a facility of that entity in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit organization if: (1) the use occurs outside the scope of business of the business entity; (2) such injury or death occurs during a period that such facility is used by such organization; and (3) the business entity authorized the use of such facility by the organization.
Makes this Act inapplicable to an injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct, including misconduct that: (1) constitutes a hate crime or a crime of violence or act of international terrorism for which the defendant has been convicted in any court; or (2) involves a sexual offense for which the defendant has been convicted in any court or misconduct for which the defendant has been found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
Preempts State laws to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except State law that provides additional protection from liability. Specifies that this Act shall not be construed to supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
Makes this Act inapplicable to any civil action in a State court against a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State, citing this Act's authority and containing no other provision, enacts a statute declaring the State's election that this Act shall not apply to such action in the State.
Reason: This Bill focuses on shielding business entities from civil liability relating to an injury or death depending on the conditions of injury, hence the generated summary is correct.

Now, solve this instance: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ''Reducing Global Warming Pollution
from Vehicles Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the State of California has regulated motor vehicle air
emissions more stringently than the Federal Government for more
than 40 years;
(2) in recognition of the pioneering role of the State in
protecting public health and welfare from motor vehicle
emissions, Congress enacted section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) that allows the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this Act as the
''Administrator'') to waive Federal preemption of motor vehicle
standards established by the State;
(3) on December 21, 2005, the State requested a waiver of
preemption under that Act for the regulation of the State to
control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles;
(4) the regulation of the State requires a reduction in the
emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks sold
in the State;
(5) once a waiver is granted to the State of California for
that regulation, other States may adopt the vehicle emission
standards established by the State of California;
(6) as of the date of introduction of this Act--
(A) 14 other States have adopted or are adopting
the California standards, including Arizona,
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington;
(B) at least 4 additional States are moving toward
adopting the California standards, including Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, and Utah; and
(C) taken together, those 19 States represent more
than half of the population of the United States;
(7) the comments submitted to the Administrator
overwhelmingly supported the request of the State of California
for a waiver;
(8) according to legal papers filed by the California
Attorney General, of the approximately 98,000 comments in the
docket of the Environmental Protection Agency, docket, more
than 99.9 percent supported the petition of the State;
(9) notwithstanding that support, on December 19, 2007,
Administrator Stephen Johnson took the extraordinary step of
denying the request of the State, dated December 21, 2005, for
the waiver;
(10) the flat denial by the Administrator of the waiver
request was unprecedented;
(11) according to the Congressional Research Service, the
State of California has requested waivers of preemption under
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) for
vehicle emission standards more than 50 times since that
provision was enacted, and the Administrator has never outright
denied such a request, but instead always granted the requests,
in whole or in part;
(12) the denial of the Administrator of the waiver
reportedly overrode the overwhelming evidence presented by the
technical and legal staff of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(13) the Administrator sought to justify the denial of the
waiver by arguing that the waiver would create a ''confusing
patchwork'' of State regulations;
(14) in fact, no such patchwork would result from the
granting of the waiver because, under the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 6401 et seq.), if the waiver were granted, there would
continue to be 2 standards for vehicles, as there have been for
30 years--a weaker Federal standard, and a more stringent
California standard adopted by many States across the United
States;
(15) the benefits of permitting the State of California to
establish more stringent vehicle standards, which are
subsequently adopted by other States, are well documented;
(16) the National Academy of Sciences found in 2006 that in
''forcing technology development, California has been a
laboratory for emissions-control innovations. . . . The
original reasons for which Congress authorized California to
have a separate set of standards remain valid. . . . California
should continue its pioneering role in setting mobile-source
emissions standards. The role will aid the State's efforts to
achieve air quality goals and will allow it to continue to be a
proving ground for new emissions-control technologies that
benefit California and the rest of the Nation.'';
(17) the Administrator also sought to justify the denial of
the waiver by arguing that the national fuel economy standards
for vehicles enacted by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) would be ''more effective'' at
reducing emissions than the California standards;
(18) however, an analysis by the California Air Resources
Board shows that the California standards, once fully adopted,
would result, by 2020, in approximately twice as large a
cumulative reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in California
as, and more than an 80 percent greater reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions nationally than, would be achieved under the
Federal program;
(19) the argument of the Administrator that national fuel
economy standards eliminate the need for vehicle greenhouse gas
emission controls also runs counter to the analysis of the
Supreme Court in the landmark April 2007 decision of
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (127 S. Ct.
1438), in which the Supreme Court--
(A) rejected the argument of the Administrator that
the authority of the Department of Transportation to
regulate vehicle fuel efficiency undercuts the
authority of the Administrator to regulate greenhouse
gases from vehicles; and
(B) noted that the fact ''that DOT [the Department
of Transportation] sets mileage standards in no way
licenses EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] to
shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been
charged with protecting the public's 'health' and
'welfare,' . . . a statutory obligation wholly
independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy
efficiency . . . The two obligations may overlap, but
there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot
both administer their obligations and yet avoid
inconsistency.''; and
(20) it is the sense of Congress that the denial by the
Administrator of the request by the State of California for the
waiver is not supported by science, precedent, or applicable
law.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to permit the State of California and other States to
immediately proceed under the regulation of the State of
California to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor
vehicles, rather than forcing the States to litigate for what
could be several years to vindicate their rights, while climate
change continues to threaten public health and the environment;
and
(2) to provide certainty to automakers, the States, and the
public about future regulatory requirements for greenhouse gas
emissions from motor vehicles.

SEC. 3. WAIVER OF PREEMPTION FOR CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REGULATION FOR VEHICLES.

Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
''(f) Waiver.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) or any other
provision of law, the application for a waiver of preemption dated
December 21, 2005, submitted to the Administrator pursuant to
subsection (b) by the State of California for the regulation of that
State to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles shall be
considered to be approved.''.
Student:
Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act of 2008 - Amends the Clean Air Act to approve the application of the state of California for a waiver of federal preemption of its motor vehicle emission standards.