Biden Admin Withdraws Nomination for NHTSA Leadership
The White House withdrew the nomination of Ann Carlson to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Tuesday, following criticisms that she was unqualified to fill the role. Despite Carlson serving as the acting administrator since September, the Senate Commerce Committee had accused her of being a career environmentalist with no formal background in roadway safety.
Though it’s hard to see why that’s relevant these days, as similar accusations could be thrown at the current United States Secretary of Transportation. Prior to being scooped up by the Biden administration, Pete Buttigieg was the mayor of a town in Indiana with an impressive academic record. But his work with the transportation sector was extremely limited.
He has likewise attempted to implement modern environmental concerns into the Department of Transportation. But this has been an obligatory issue for the administration since taking office, with Joe Biden setting a national goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030 and setting aside billions of dollars to incentivize the transition.
While Buttigieg has been criticized for being unqualified, the push back against Carlson seemed more focused. Though this may be a matter of the Senate’s commerce panel digging its heels into the dirt of late. The administration’s picks for the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration were also shot down by Congress and were ultimately withdrawn by the White House.
As for Carlson, Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee seemed extremely perturbed with her role in the development of fuel-economy standards in 2021. Accusations revolved around how rampant environmentalism served as a distraction from roadway safety, with members citing rising traffic fatalities over the last few years.
“Based on your record, we are deeply concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will follow the EPA’s lead and propose similarly radical vehicle fuel economy standards that run contrary to the law, diminish vehicle choice, impose higher costs on American families, and undermine our national and energy security all while [benefiting] China,” Republicans on the Commerce Committee told Carlson in a letter. “As NHTSA finalizes a proposal for new fuel economy standards for model years 2027 to 2032, we urge you to reject the EPA’s economically destructive regulatory overreach.”
“There is nothing in federal law that authorizes NHTSA to set fuel economy standards that effectively mandate the production of EVs in order to force gas-powered vehicles out of existence. Such an EV mandate would appear to violate the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine as articulated in West Virginia v. EPA because using fuel economy standards to force automakers to electrify vehicles would have ‘vast economic and political significance’ and thus require ‘clear congressional authorization.’ NHTSA not only lacks such ‘clear congressional authorization,’ it is specifically prohibited by federal law from considering the fuel economy of EVs when setting fuel-economy standards. Yet that is precisely what NHTSA did last year when setting 2024-26 fuel economy standards and would do so again if it follows the EPA’s lead.”
Obviously, politics play a major role in the matter. The Biden administration has been encouraging numerous federal agencies to focus on environmentalism, with the DOT and NHTSA being no different. However, under the Trump administration, an emphasis was made to keep automobiles affordable by not over-regulating the industry. The theory here was that lighter, fuel efficient gas vehicles would be environmentally sound and help retain domestic jobs. The move was also supposed to serve consumers by ensuring the vehicles they preferred remained prevalent and on the market.
But one cannot help but point out that both schemes (Republican or Democrat led) seem to focus on issues that supersede the fundamental tenets of promoting safety. Instead, they’re targeting broader market issues and the potential economic ramifications of trying to mandate all-electric vehicles.
Ann Carlson’s previous role as an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles makes it clear which side of the fence she’s on. She has likewise expressed her appointment as evidence that the Biden administration wants serious climate experts overseeing federal agencies. However, that failed to make her popular with influential people.
Numerous industry groups pressured Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D-WA.) and ranking member Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to block her nomination. While many of these were predictably tied to the oil and gas industry, several farming groups and agricultural lobbies were also on board with concerns that she may promote a restrictive regulatory environment.
The backlash seems to have worked. The White House has pulled Carlson’s nomination without expressing exactly why the decision was made. Though we imagine the above criticisms and lobbying influence played a meaningful role.
[Image: Tada Images/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Dusterdude The "fire them all" is looking a little less unreasonable the longer the union sticks to the totally ridiculous demands ( or maybe the members should fire theit leadership ! )
- Thehyundaigarage Yes, Canadian market vehicles have had immobilizers mandated by transport Canada since around 2001.In the US market, some key start Toyotas and Nissans still don’t have immobilizers. The US doesn’t mandate immobilizers or daytime running lights, but they mandate TPMS, yet canada mandates both, but couldn’t care less about TPMS. You’d think we’d have universal standards in North America.
- Alan I think this vehicle is aimed more at the dedicated offroad traveller. It costs around the same a 300 Series, so its quite an investment. It would be a waste to own as a daily driver, unless you want to be seen in a 'wank' vehicle like many Wrangler and Can Hardly Davidson types.The diesel would be the choice for off roading as its quite torquey down low and would return far superior mileage than a petrol vehicle.I would think this is more reliable than the Land Rovers, BMW make good engines. https://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2023-ineos-grenadier-review/
- Lorenzo I'll go with Stellantis. Last into the folly, first to bail out. Their European business won't fly with the German market being squeezed on electricity. Anybody can see the loss of Russian natural gas and closing their nuclear plants means high cost electricity. They're now buying electrons from French nuclear plants, as are the British after shutting down their coal industry. As for the American market, the American grid isn't in great shape either, but the US has shale oil and natural gas. Stellantis has profits from ICE Ram trucks and Jeeps, and they won't give that up.
- Inside Looking Out Chinese will take over EV market and Tesla will become the richest and largest car company in the world. Forget about Japanese.