This is not a political blog. As such, I will try to refrain from sharing my political ideals (and ideas) with you. However, politics and regulation go hand-in-hand. When regulation affects the automotive sector, it becomes fodder for this blog.
A current political battle on Capitol Hill focuses on regulations, and what some term “job killing” rules. We must recognize that regulations tend to exist for specific reasons and that those affected by the regulations tend to dislike them. This is reasonable, since the regulations were created to curb the behavior of those affected to begin with. It stands to reason that any industry affected by regulation tends to dislike those regulations. This holds true for the automotive sector as well.
Many of the regulations covering the automotive industry are redundant, conflicting and costly. A streamlining of these rules would save millions of dollars for automotive manufacturers and open the US market to vehicles that were previously unavailable, many of which are very fuel efficient.
Focus on Emissions
Unlike some other industries, the global nature of the automotive industry does not easily lend itself to national and even state-level regulations. In the USA, the primary auto regulatory body is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). A second regulatory body that is just as influential, if not more, is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
NHTSA focus is on safety. According to their website, NHTSA
“investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces fuel economy standards, helps states and local communities reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety belts, child safety seats and air bags, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.”
[Technically, odometer fraud, vehicle theft and fuel economy are not safety related…]
Unlike NHTSA, the EPA focuses on the environmental impact of motor vehicles. This translates into regulating the emissions of motor vehicles, with a particular focus on NOx (Nitrogen Oxides), and fuel formulations.
As if two regulatory bodies weren’t enough, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) continuously promulgates its own regulations on vehicle emissions that are more stringent than those created by the EPA. California alone has a large market for new vehicle sales. However, there are at least 13 other states that follow CARB standards. This means that vehicle manufacturers must either design vehicles to adhere to CARB standards or create two separate models, one that follows CARB and one that follows the EPA. It must be said that CARB has been a leader in emissions regulations with the EPA often playing catch-up.
Streamlining Regulations
States should not be able to regulate vehicle emissions regardless of existing federal laws. One federal standard, applied evenly across all 50 states would do much to reduce the regulatory burden on this industry. But there is more.
While we have conflicting rules in the US, we are not the only country regulating vehicle emissions. For one, the European Union (EU) has its own set of emissions standards, albeit not currently mandatory. The EU standards vary by vehicle type and become more stringent with each tier (Euro 1, Euro 2 … Euro 6). Each tier sets out the maximum allowable emission for Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrogen Oxide Hydrocarbons + Nitrogen Oxide and Particulate Matters. Yes, those are a lot of very detailed rules and regulations; let’s use them.
There is no reason why CARB should essentially dictate auto emissions in the US and there is no reason the US needs to separately regulate auto emissions when the EU is doing it already. I know, it’s a shocking concept, but abdicating responsibility for regulating vehicle emissions and harmonizing those rules internationally is a win-win situation.
The winners of this approach would be:
- Environment & Public Health – EU rules are much more stringent and cover more compounds than those in the US
- Consumers & Auto Industry – Following one set of common standards would severely reduce the cost of bringing many newer and more fuel efficient engines and vehicles the US market
- Taxpayers – Due to historic deficits, any reduction in federal expenditures needs to be considered
The only possible downside to this approach is an affront to national pride in following someone else’s rules. Let’s face it folks, global trade does not thrive when national and regional laws widely conflict with each other. As it turns out, Australia is already following the EU lead. They are as proud and independent as anyone. We can do the same.
If we ever get that far, maybe we can harmonize the various lighting, seatbelt, crash worthiness and regulations that make this business so complex and costly to operate in.
Recent Comments