By on August 13, 2019

2018 Honda Accord Touring 1.5T - Image: Honda

The Senate won’t have to worry about approving the nomination of Heidi King as National Highway Traffic Safety Administration boss, as King won’t be there to fill the seat. The acting administrator of the NHTSA announced her resignation late Monday.

King, who joined the road safety agency as a deputy administrator in 2017, will leave her office at the end of the month. While President Donald Trump nominated King for the administrator job in 2018, the nomination never went to a full Senate vote — though she was twice approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Now, someone else will have to tackle the job of rolling back fuel efficiency standards.

That person has already been found, at least on a temporary basis. As reported by The Washington Post, after August 31st the acting administrator post will be occupied by James Owens, the Transportation Department’s deputy general counsel. As well, general counsel Steven Bradbury will don the acting deputy secretary hat.

Both men were involved in the complex, drawn-out process of unraveling Obama-era efficiency rules. The Trump administration insists that lofty MPG standards pose a threat to the American auto industry, with NHTSA officials arguing that a markup in cost born of new, fuel-saving technologies will prevent citizens from getting into newer, safer vehicles.

Currently, the administration finds itself in a battle with the state of California, which sets its own efficiency rules. Automakers are caught in the middle, desperate to avoid a scenario where one market (the U.S.) contains two standards for efficiency. In the hopes of sidestepping this product planning/regulatory nightmare, major auto organizations recently pressed the federal government to adopt a single standard.

Earlier this month, the NHTSA formally unveiled its proposal to freeze fuel efficiency standards at 2020 levels. Titled “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” the proposal would revoke California’s ability to set its own MPG mandate. Current standards call for a fleetwide fuel-efficiency average of 46.7 miles per gallon by 2026.

Under the proposed rules, fleetwide efficiency would remain at 37 mpg for a period of five years.

“If adopted, the proposed rule’s preferred alternative would save more than $500 billion in societal costs and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of vehicles through MY 2029),” the agency stated.

A 60-day comment period kicked off after the proposal’s release, during which we can expect to hear plenty of heated arguments in favor of the Obama-era rules from environmental groups and the state of California.

[Image: Honda]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

48 Comments on “NHTSA Acting Chief Heidi King to Roll on Down the Highway...”


  • avatar
    Detroit-X

    Sometimes it’s better to be Mr. Spock than Captain Kirk. Sometime’s it’s not even worth being Mr. Spock.

    That aside, I can think of many things to “save fuel” that don’t require spending tons of money on, if the EPA had the balls.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I think both sides can agree that working for Trump has to be one of the most frustrating jobs in existence. And they always seem to be available.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Guy’s a textbook malignant narcissist. I know – I was married to one. Everything this guy does is straight out of her wacko playbook. Eventually, folks like this turn on everyone – the only ones who stick around are the ones who profess complete, unquestioning loyalty. Eventually, even the loyalists get tossed aside. And they STILL manage to find new flying monkeys to follow them. So much of what’s happening these days reminds me of the last days of my marriage and divorce…except it’s happening on a national scale. “Depressing” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

      Interesting reading…

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurosagacity/201702/how-tell-youre-dealing-malignant-narcissist

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Your judgment is probably much better now than when you promised to share the rest of your life with someone you say is a malignant narcissist. Depression suits you though. At least you won’t act on your wrongheaded beliefs if you’re bummed out by the liars who are trying to weaponize your conditioned ignorance.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          For those of you keeping score at home, Todd’s little superiority complex is yet another manifestation of the wondrous disorder known as narcissism. Enjoy.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex

          (By the way, at the heart of narcissism is a pathological fear of being ignored. This explains why certain people just say stupid, insulting things, even when they know it’ll get a negative response. In the end, they’d rather be hated than ignored.)

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            These are the insights of a ‘science’ whose current state espouses that people should be mutilated to indulge their psychoses. When I was in college, it wasn’t a secret that people who entered psychology were trying to heal themselves. How was that information kept from you and why?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            When the science pegs you in a way you don’t like, reject the science.

            Beautiful.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Todd, Really?

          Let me replay what just took place so you can see outside of your perspective.

          FreedMike: Criticizes Trump’s personality disorder
          ToddAtlas: Attacks FreedMike

          Todd, try to focus. Calling out a political figure isn’t a personal attack on you, and you shouldn’t take it as such. You also shouldn’t attack others because they disagree with you. That’s the opposite of what you should do.

          Hugs,
          Common Sense

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Common sense is for “inferior” folks like us, jk…don’t bother. This guy – and Trump – act superior because deep down, they’re so damaged that they feel inferior. As a result, they’re UNBELIEVABLY fragile. That’s why they go nuclear over any disagreement, no matter how minor – they literally can’t handle it. To them, we’re “inferior” because we don’t live the same way they do – i.e., the rules that everyone else has to follow just don’t apply to them.

            That’s hard to understand if that’s not your reality, but believe me – that’s how they live. It’s no use arguing with them or correcting them – they live in their own private Idaho.

            Took me a LONG time to figure it out.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Mike, I hear you and I agree with your summary of the problem.

            It’s the lack of honesty and shocking hypocrisy that I have a hard time digesting.

            Political fanboy behavior reminds me of the Ford vs. Chevy pick up truck sticker war of the 90’s. The difference is that at least the Ford and Chevy fanboys tended to know A LOT about trucks.

            Political fanboys knowing their subject matter? Not so much.

    • 0 avatar
      JoeBrick

      Maybe congress’ refusal to confirm Trump’s appointees has something to do with it. The democrats in congress (and the RINOs) are a disgrace to our country.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Inconvenient truth. The sheep were supposed to think that their team were the saviors and the other team were the problems when it turns out that both parties were always on the same team, and it wasn’t the voters’.

        • 0 avatar
          JoeBrick

          There are TWO teams. The Oneparty Team in congress and the Deep State, and the Trump Team, like it or not. The republicans in congress have done not a single thing to help Trump, with the exception of that one single Tax Cut bill. It really seems to be Trump and his voters against the rest of the world.But don’t forget his voters.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      SCE to AUX, you could be right about the frustration factors for the hired help, but for millions of subjects like myself, we are enjoying the Trump Effect for as long as it lasts, because it is the best thing that has happened to America’s silent majority, ever.

      All the hatred toward Trump does not offset all the great stuff he’s done, is doing, and will continue to do for America while in office.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        My vote for Trump is the only vote I’ve regretted. I wish I had voted for Gary Johnson. At least then I’d have plausible deniability.

        I agree with most of what he’s trying to do, but he’s not a stable genius.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          SCE to AUX, I didn’t vote for Trump but I am pleasantly surprised at what he has accomplished during his brief tenure, so far. More than any other president in my lifetime.

          Imagine what Trump will do AFTER he is re-elected. No holds barred bare knuckle brawling!!! I love it! No more pussyfooting around. Kick @ss and take names.

          Maybe too much to hope for…..

          I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, knew him personally, and his first wife and my wife went to school and knew each other in school in NM. Stayed in touch with him during his years as NM Governor. NM is a sparsely populated state.

          It’s a small world, after all.

          Trump’s no politician, and I don’t care. as long as he is effective for America.

          The way Trump is handling the usurping trading partners of the US who treated America like a doormat for decades has many ‘crats, including Chuck Schumer, believing Trump is a Democrat and they praise him in public!

          Will wonders ever cease?

        • 0 avatar
          snakebit

          The one advantage to have voted for Gary JOhnson would have been getting Bill Weld for Vice President. My experience with Weld when he governed Massachusetts was that he was governor first and loyal Republican secondarily. If he ever truly challenges Trump and is successful in his challenge, it will be a new day for our country and we’ll be confident in having our country back for the first time in nearly three years. Trump is only a fart in a box compared to any past president of the last 80 years.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Here is one person’s (MY) take:

    First, some inconvenient truths:

    First, there is an easy way to reduce exhaust emissions, and raise some more money to fix the roads: Tax fuel. Simple. Easy. Logical. FAIR! (they more fuel you use, the more wear and tear you put on the road).

    Second, Trump is a narcissist.

    Third, the both major parties have one PRIME DIRECTIVE: to hold onto as many levers of power. If that means lying, our selling out to the highest bidder, so be it. Their SECOND DIRECTIVE: to enable the first, we must never let another entity govern. Never. Toward that end, we must work with our enemy, and convenient foil, the other party, to keep ANY OTHER PARTY OUT.

    Now, Trump may be all that and worse like the Trump-haters say, but only candidate Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, was willing to state the inconvenient truths. He beat BOTH parties–for this, he deserves to be canonized.

    I was hoping his narcissism, and the fact that he was the “john” and not the “prostitute” in his past dealing with Dems and Republicans (he even donated to …Schumer, YUK!) would drive him to earn a place in the history books in a good way. He has not—but he has not been all bad either. Another big spender–albeit one who has been handicapped by unfair treatment by the media, and more importantly, by the outgoing administration, which conjured up the “Russian” bogeyman, and which Trump has not been able to get around.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Let’s assume that “Trump is telling an inconvenient truth” argument holds water for the sake of discussion. Here’s two big problems with that:

      1) “Truth,” inconvenient or otherwise is diluted when it comes from a chronic liar. No one expects the guy to be a saint, and all politicians lie, but good Lord…it’s an everyday thing with him.
      2) If Trump loses, it won’t be because of his politics – it’ll be because of his own behavior. If that happens, then his “truths” become inseparable from his behaviors, and will be repudiated at the same time he is.

      The bottom line, I think, is that if someone wants to make truly profound changes, that person better display some character. He doesn’t have to be perfect – just trustworthy. Trump isn’t. That threatens everything he wants to accomplish – assuming, of course, that all this isn’t some giant, self-serving ego trip on his part (which I think it might just be).

  • avatar
    Steve Lynch

    TTAC: Just another hate-filled political blog…

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The hate is always started by the Anti-Right, Anti-White coalition who can’t accept that Trump is doing great things for America, and Americans.

      And it won’t end after Trump is re-elected.

      #ARAW

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        Yes of course, because everyone on the right was always super respectful and accepting of Obama as a legitimate president. /s

        Come on dude, we all know the disease rots both ways.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          The anti-Trumpers are always playing the RACE card. Didn’t happen with the last guy in office. It was all about incompetence on his part. And redistribution of America’s wealth from the working to the freeloaders.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            There is no reasoning with absolutists. Must be an easy world to live in believing anyone who disagrees with you is incompetent or a freeloader or worse, eh?

            “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
            – George Orwell

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            People don’t have to agree with me. Why would I care?

            But I have my beliefs and I do not care to support the unproductive freeloading segment of America’s society.

            Charity begins at home.

            More than 6.1 million Americans who choose not to work! There are more job openings in America than there are unemployed!

            At least more of them are working these days and paying taxes.

            Thank you President Trump.

            And thank you for denying a Green Card to freeloading immigrants who go on welfare and foodstamps, MedicAid and Housing assistance upon entering America.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Folks who oppose Trump are “anti-white”? Guess I’m anti-myself, then.

        (What nonsense…)

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          And Antifa.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          FreedMike, people who oppose Trump are ALWAYS invoking the RACE card. That’s anti-White.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Clever solution to the problem of how to be an unapologetic bigot, if you ask me…

            1) Trump says bigoted stuff.
            2) People who don’t support him call him out on it.
            3) Instead of Trump’s supporters calling him out for saying bigoted stuff, say anyone who is calling him out on it is…ahem…”anti-white.” It doesn’t matter that most folks calling Trump out for being a bigot are themselves white, of course. They’re “playing the race card.”

            Voila! All the sudden, the problem isn’t Trump’s bigoted mouth, but the his political opponents who are just pointing out the obvious.

            Come to think of it, maybe “clever” isn’t the right word.

            The economy’s been good under any number of presidents without having to put up with Trump’s bulls**t. Sorry.

            (And if you really think that calling out someone for being a bigot is “anti-white,” then the problem isn’t the people calling out Trump – it’s your perception of what “anti-white” is.)

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, not a problem. You’re entitled to what you think.

            Different strokes for different folks.

            I judge an administration on how and what they have done for me and mine.

            After all, it was a Nationalist movement that got Trump elected, and I didn’t vote for him because the MSM filled the airwaves with all sorts of reasons why Trump didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected.

            And then Trump got elected.

            Hallelujah. There IS a God!

            I credit the current administration’s policies for allowing me the lifestyle that I have today.

            But that, too, shall pass. Although I hope it doesn’t pass until 2025.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, at least you’ve moved on from the race-card nonsense. Good.

            My lifestyle’s just fine under Trump as well. But you know who I credit for that? Me, that’s who. Trump didn’t make my career, and he won’t unmake it. That’s my problem, not the president’s. If I’m waiting on the president to make my career better, I’m a fool.

            Is this the only time in my memory that we’ve enjoyed a good economy? No. Things were fine under Reagan, Clinton, most of Bush II, and most of Obama…without having to put up with Trump’s daily bulls**t rantings, bigotry, and conspiracy-theory nonsense. Anyone who says we have to put up with Trump’s garbage to have a growing economy is wrong…period.

            In fact, if you like Trump’s policies, and you find them beneficial, you and every one of his supporters should inundate the White House with pleas to shut his piehole and stick to business, because if he loses in 2020, it won’t be because of his policies – it’ll be because of his behavior. And if that happens, all of his policies will be invalidated, just like he was.

            That’s the danger of leading through “personality,” which Trump is doing – once people have enough of the “personality,” they reject everything the “personality” stood for.

            I’m deadly serious – call him today. Get your supporter friends to do the same.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, we can’t move on from the race-card because the ‘crats are invoking it at every opportunity, even when there are no race issues involved.

            I’m not going to tell Trump what he should or should not do. He’s a different kinda President, one that take no BS from his opponents and strikes back, twice as hard.

            As long as Trump lives up to his promises made, promises kept agenda, I’m fine with him verbally whipping his detractors to shreds.

            Finally, a President who stands up for America!

            But you can’t ever tell about national elections. Who knew that Trump could be elected in 2016?

            Certainly not the mainstream media.

            What are his chances in 2020?

            Who knows at this juncture?

            I gotta go now. Got other things to do away from my PC.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      There are so many ways to create a heated discussion, but injecting politics (and personality) is the easiest.

      I would have preferred we argue over whether the “gov’mint” has direct authority to madate fuel efficiency. It’s secondary to air quality, the primary being auto emissions, and it has other effects that are none of the gov’mint’s business.

      Consider limiting the electric consumption of a clothes washer, for example. The result is weaker motors, reduced washer capacity, maybe even shorter wash/spin cycles. That runs against the purpose of a washer, to get clothes clean. I’m sure you can achieve SOME efficiency, but a blanket mandate for reduced power consumption can only limit the washer buyer’s choices and reduce the performance of the washer’s intended function.

      I submit that fuel mileage mandates do the same thing, and should be eliminated altogether.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    It all makes sense when you consider things such as: how many jobs in the EPA (or CARB) are dependent on ever more stringent CAFE standards? How many Democrats in Congress and their staffers hope to get juicy consulting/lobbying jobs with environmental/leftist NGOs, renewable energy firms, and think tanks after their days of “public service” of advocating for tougher CAFE standards are done (aka when voters in their district get wise and vote them out)? How many of the above like flying at public expense to exotic luxury locations to discuss how to stop global warming with science experts such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore? Following the money, jobs, and status explains everything, but please don’t ask them to live their own lives in the low carbon footprint manner they are asking the rest of us to pay and sacrifice for.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Have you ever worked for a nonprofit?

      It’s more like “half of what you’d make in the for-profit sector, job security dependent on capricious funders, and crappy benefits” than the luxury life you invented in your head.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        There are lots of NGO jobs that pay big bucks for the “right” person (i.e. politically connected or attractive to donors). Joe Biden is making $370K as a Penn Professor and I don’t believe he even teaches a course. Michelle Obama was making over $300K as a U. of Chicago hospital administrator back in 2008, and in an amazing coincidence she got the high paid position when her husband was elected to the Senate. Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm is an adjunct professor at the University of California and earns $150K annually to teach two graduate courses.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @stingray65–There is a name for those leftist environmentalists, limousine liberals.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Yes, I personally think Pres. Trump’s antics and tweets have been counterproductive, and don’t help him.

    These tactics worked in his past to enrich him and his family, but probably are not the best for a President. They aren’t Presidential.

    On the other hand, no matter what the President does, the press will blow it out of proportion. He could jaywalk on an empty street and they would call for his scalp; yet for the previous President, he could have run a light and killed a pedestrian, and the press would say “he didn’t mean too; besides, the pedestrian should have looked at the street, not just the ‘cross-now’ light”.

    If Clinton was President, the press would make things sound better than they are.

    I didn’t start the political discourse, but I will chime in. I think both ‘sides’ have a point. While Mr. Trump was, and remains, a breath of fresh air in the fetid swamp that is America’s govt (which American’s bear considerable responsibility for, since they vote for these people), he has been disappointing. Even so, IMO, he is preferable to the alternative. If, in the end, a wealthy, non-beholden, brash individual cannot break the grip of the two parties and the idiocracy they perpetrate (exhibit 67, the lousy gasoline Americans must buy–watered down with ethanol, because of big agra…), then the game is over. It was a great run from 1945-73, which I missed out on, and a good run from 1981-1999, which I benefited from. Both eras were a good time for cars too.

    The debt is building up…it will drown us like a tsumani, and we will look back (many of us anyway) at the good old days when we’d read TTAC and smile or vent…

    I didn’t, and will not, start political discourse here. But it’s too good to pass up…

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Not a fan of Trump but as you said whatever he does whether its good or bad will be criticized. I hate the ethanol added to gas especially since many vehicles and power equipment will be damaged. I am also not a fan of small turbo motors and CVTs but that seems to be the direction that the manufacturers are going. The debt is a real concern especially when the currency is inflated to pay it off which is what happened in the 70’s.

  • avatar
    Best_Ever

    Can hear anyone through the insane amount of REEEEEEEEEEEEEE in here.

  • avatar
    stuart

    Everyone here is blaming CARB (CA Air Resources Board) for their regulations requiring pollution controls, reformulated gasoline, and now mileage standards. But CARB is just trying to satisfy the Federal Clean Air Act. If CA fails to clean up its (currently unacceptable) air, EPA is supposed to step in and punish CA for failing to protect the public health. (In all honesty, I’m not certain the Trump EPA would actually enforce the Act, but the Obama EPA did, and I’m certain any Dem-controlled EPA would.)

    If the B&B can explain how CA can clear its air without mileage standards, millions of Californians would be very interested to hear. Including me.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      CARB is claiming the validity of its own interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and that’s a federal law meant to be administered by federal agencies. CARB exists as an exception to CAA, granted by the federal government. It has taken on itself a status co-equal to the governing federal agencies, even independent of state agencies, forcing individuals and industries to get state courts to rein it in. It’s the apotheosis of an independedent agency, grown far beyond its original purpose.

      • 0 avatar
        stuart

        Um, no.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

        EPA enforces the Clean Air Act; if CA/CARB doesn’t comply, EPA has punishments it can apply (see ‘Roles of the federal government and states’ section of the Wikipedia page).

        CARB is not exceptional. According to the Wikipedia article, all fifty states have their own analogous programs.

        Have a look at the “Nonattainment” map on the Wikipedia page; it’s not just CA that has a problem, although it’s clear that CA has the worst problem. BTW, that’s not a CARB-generated map; CARB is not declaring CA air “too smoggy”; the Feds are.

        The Wikipedia page notes that EPA sued CA in 1970 for failing to comply with the Act. CA lost, and the court apparently imposed EPA’s plan on CA at that time… Ergo, today’s CA/CARB could back off their mileage standards, ignore the Act, and, eventually, EPA would step in and impose something (‘Roles of the federal government and states’). Or, maybe just impose fines. In 2010, EPA fined CA’s San Joaquin County $29M for failing to clear its air.

        Again, CARB and its silly mandates are CA’s reaction to the Clean Air Act. If the B&B can explain how CA can clear its air without mileage standards, us Kalifornistan-dwellers are all eagerly waiting to hear.

        For the record, as a CA-dwelling “car guy,” I’m not thrilled with un-modifiable engines, catalytic converters, expensive reformulated gasoline, EV quotas, and extreme mileage standards. But CARB has a pretty good track record, and I believe they’re science-driven. If there’s a better, smarter way to clean up our air, I expect we’d be hearing about it.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Diminishing returns. The CARB knows it, but they’re in it for the glory now. And mostly the collection of fines.

          Doubling the MPG of autos won’t make a bit of difference. CA drivers with 2X the MPG will drive twice as much. The same thing happens with drastic drops in fuel prices. Americans drive dramatically more.

          So nothing could possibly change in the CA sky, yet there’s dozens of greater sources of air pollution, totally unfiltered, totally visible, that nothing will be done about. Nor CAN be done about, like military, 4 branches, and commercial aviation. Did I mention collection of fines?

          • 0 avatar
            stuart

            “So nothing could possibly change in the CA sky,”

            O.K., explain that to EPA, so they’ll drop enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Better yet, explain that to Congress, and have them exempt CA from the Act.

            “…yet there’s dozens of greater sources of air pollution, totally unfiltered, totally visible, that nothing will be done about.”

            [citation needed]

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            No one said the tightening of rules would fix anything, let alone notability improve what anyone can see or has to breathe. Where’s the scientists? This is just pure politics and as always, follow the money.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @DenverMike–Some good points. Many will drive more with more efficient vehicles and declining fuel prices. Also what about older vehicles that are not properly maintained. There can be strict standards for newer vehicles making them more expensive and still have many older vehicles that are not maintained contributing significantly to pollution. Agree also that there is only so much you can do with an ICE with diminishing returns for any incremental improvements. Seems that just more regulations and fines are not the answer without a comprehensive plan to actually ensure that the environment is improved and keep vehicles affordable for most.

    • 0 avatar
      stuart

      “Many will drive more with more efficient vehicles and declining fuel prices.”

      I’m eagerly looking forward to declining fuel prices. CA gasoline is unique to CA, and the most expensive in the continental US. Oh, wait; CA just raised its gas tax… When, exactly, do you expect CA gas prices to decline?

      “Also what about older vehicles that are not properly maintained. There can be strict standards for newer vehicles making them more expensive and still have many older vehicles that are not maintained contributing significantly to pollution.”

      Wrong. Most of CA has mandated smog checks, every two years. If your car fails smog, CA won’t renew the registration.

      “Agree also that there is only so much you can do with an ICE with diminishing returns for any incremental improvements. Seems that just more regulations and fines are not the answer without a comprehensive plan to actually ensure that the environment is improved and keep vehicles affordable for most.”

      Great! Explain this to EPA and Congress, and get CA off the hook!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DenverMike: No one said the tightening of rules would fix anything, let alone notability improve what anyone can see...
  • JoeBrick: Argentina is collapsing as we speak. It could be the start of a region-wide collapse. Let’s hope not....
  • Oberkanone: Nissan is aggressively pursuing the commercial fleet business with it’s white vans and white...
  • lstanley: I. Love. This. Car. Except the grill. ay, Dios míos
  • djsyndrome: My Matrix ran for 275k miles before the cost to pass CA smog became more than the car was worth. It also...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States