When it comes to any new regulation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration deems "not controversial and therefore unlikely to receive adverse comment," it would like the power to implement the regulation without the standard period of public comment. It seeks the change in order to be able to clear and finalize "routine" rules in a matter of days. If NHTSA is granted the power it seeks, people could still comment on such regulations and request changes, but the agency could ignore the feedback and the requests.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has questioned the proposal, which would expedite the "direct final rule" process, citing the decrease in transparency it could entail and the ambiguous definition of "controversy" – what NHTSA thinks is a routine regulation, others could consider anything but.

The notice was posted on the NHTSA site on Tuesday, but NHTSA hasn't commented on the proposal, it's chief saying he would let it speak for itself.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 115 Comments
      Gabbo
      • 1 Year Ago
      I want my obama phone !!!
        masteraq
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Gabbo
        ^^^ note to editors: please delete the off-topic racial comments
        Justin Campanale
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Gabbo
        You mean the program which was originally started by Reagan?
          Army Casualty
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          A liberal wouln't know the truth, e.g. a "fact," if it hit them in the face, then splashed them with water, and said very slowly that it was one.
          gop.hates.america
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          When have facts, or common sense mattered to the idiot conservatives?
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      Terrible idea. The mindset at NHTSA would quickly become one of: "...no reasonable person could possibly argue with this new rule". You could then expect new rules requiring things equivalent to tire pressure monitoring systems and backup cameras to be mandated every few weeks, all without public comment.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        [blocked]
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          Ok, all of you. IT"S BOTH SIDES THAT WANT TO RULE WITH AN IRON FIST. Stop saying this is a left vs. right issue. It's not, they all suck. As soon as all of you figure this out, the better off we all are. First, Government should have never been in the marriage business to begin with. Then you would have this "marriage debate" crap to deal with. Abortion is the only sticky topic between the two that I still have yet to formulate an opinion on the government stance. I do believe that once cells start growing to form a kid, it is just that, a kid. But if we are to prosecute people for killing unborn children in car accidents, then abortion shouldn't be legal. After all, you are talking about two different standards. But I won't into that, as that is not what the article above is about. We need to government to stop running our lives ENTIRELY for us. No more banning large soda's, no intervention in marriage, no free government cheese for corporations or lying teet suckers on welfare. Get the government out of our lives and back to where it was originally supposed to be constrained to. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @ Justin, I hope that last comment was directed at Paddle, because I am not for the drug wars. As you said, they are stupid and just create an underground economy. Lastly, I am not a stupid conservative or "republican". I voted straight libertarian even though I didn't even agree with half of them. Just out of principle to show that my interests are not being served. I get taxed with no representation.
          Justin Campanale
          • 1 Year Ago
          Liberals are FORCING their values on you? No, no, it's conservatives like YOU who want everyone to live by their moral values. A fetus can't survive on its own. It can't feel anything. It is not a living thing, anymore than a sperm or egg is a living thing. If a mother has a good reason to abort her child, why should we stop her? It s NONE of our business what she wants to do. We aren't FORCING anything on you. If a woman doesn't want to abort, she doesn't have to. No one is forcing her to abort. As for gay marriage, again, no one is forcing anything on you, any more than allowing black people to use the same facilities as white people is forcing anything on white people. Gay marriage is not equivalent to marrying your dog or your daughter or anything conservatives compare it to. It's two loving, fully grown adults, who have the ability to consent, establishing a formal union between themselves. If you have a problem with it, don't marry a man. It's as simple as that. Other people should not have to live by your morals.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          Justin And then you have liberals, like Michael Bloomberg that want to regulate things like soft drink sizes, and tell us what we can and can't put in our own bodies, for the "greater good" of course.. Oh, and let's not forget that healthcare bill you all support whereby citizens will be forced to buy health insurance. Or how about the way in which it was rammed through? Liberals tend to be all for a strengthening and centralizing the government, and every time that happens, we lose a little more of our individual liberties. So, hang your hat on the whole abortion and gay marriage thing because that's about where the focus on individual liberties ends with liberals. From there, it's all about telling people what you think is good for them.
          Justin Campanale
          • 1 Year Ago
          Nanny Bloomberg is among my least favorite politicians, and he's more of an authoritarian than a liberal. I live in NYC, and we absolutely hate him. While I agree with him that we need to take some steps to combat obesity, banning soda is beyond stupid. As I've said before on this thread, effective solutions are better than over-regulation. I believe in the free-market system, but I also believe that we need to install a very basic safety net to protect the people. Universal health care would be part of this basic safety net. Every American should have access to good healthcare, and the several developed countries which have used this system for years would like to agree. Do I believe that there are still some flaws in the plan? Absolutely. The best system is a single-payer system, with opt-outs included. I believe that if you can pay for it, you should be more than welcome to buy private, high quality insurance. I see Obamacare as a stepping stone between the abysmal system we used to have, and universal health care. If you have any doubts, look up, "The libertarian case for Obamacare"
        Matthew Dawson
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        I understand that there are some truly trivial things that it'd make sense for them to want to be able to get through faster, but this would also make it easier to ram some things through by labeling them as non-controversial. Those things mentioned by you are some of the things I feel are just trying to compensate for the awful driver's education people get in this country. Of course, if someone tried to encourage more stringent driver's tests, then people'd get furious about it.
      Rippy
      • 1 Year Ago
      Notice how much controversy was ignored with wrecking older cars,that will be sabotaged with the 15% ethanol gimmick that will destroy our cars and further downgrade gas mileage.I have an 03 about to break 60,000 miles that gets about 25 avg and used to get 30 mpg avg before they started putting ethanol in gas.Thanks government leeches.
      jcwconsult
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is a TERRIBLE idea. NHTSA would be the one deciding what new regulations were "non-controversial" which is like hiring the fox to guard the hen house. All kinds of changes would be made before anyone even knew they were being made. And once bad regulations are in place, they are nearly impossible to remove. NHTSA published new proposed rules for daylight running lights (DRLs) in the early 1990s, describing that light levels above about 2,600 candela were too glaring but lower ones were OK. General Motors wanted some cheap and nasty high beam DRLs that put out over 7,000 candela in a laboratory and up to about 8,400 candela in the real world. In what was probably a quid-pro-quo trade with GM, NHTSA approved these high glare DRLs. There was a LOT of backlash and NHTSA said some new rules would be considered. I have a hand-signed letter from NHTSA dated in 1998 saying changes would be made "soon". Well, "soon" never came and GM got to produce their dangerous high-glare high-beam DRLs for as long as they wanted to. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should NHTSA be allowed to do things without public review. James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association, Executive Director-NMA Foundation
      IBx27
      • 1 Year Ago
      Yes, let's give another 3-letter department the power to bypass a Constitutional proceeding. That worked so well with our new socialist healthcare, new york governor cumhole's gun ban, and numerous other bullshit regulations and restrictions enacted over the past four years.
        XJ Yamaha
        • 1 Year Ago
        @IBx27
        While i'm not entirely behind this post, there is no reason to scream fire in a crowded auditorium because someone lit a cigarette outside. Calm it down. You're talking about "Constitutional proceeding" and the article is essentially discussing whether back-up cameras should be legally required and this is a means of fast-tracking such initiatives.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @XJ Yamaha
          Yes, but such things should not be forced on the consumer without their consent. There should be no "fast tracking" available. For that matter, things like backup cameras should still stay as options. I'm sure 5 people a year get backed over, but you are implementing a multi-hundred dollar change every car over 5 peoples stupidity. LEGISLATION CAN"T FIX STUPIDITY.
          yenComity
          • 1 Year Ago
          @XJ Yamaha
          The problem is that given power agencies tend to like to push the boundaries. Think along the lines of if you give a mouse a cookie...
      masteraq
      • 1 Year Ago
      C'mon Autoblog. By now you should know that any article having anything to do with government posted with a picture of a black guy (any black guy) is going to bring out the obama haters in force.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @masteraq
        Put your politics aside, and tell us what your opinion is on this move. I think this has more to do with people not wanting to admit they are wrong, which is so common with politics. With that said, there's probably not going to be many pro Obama posters commenting here because they probably don't agree with it either. Some will have a backbone, and admit that this is a bit of an overreach by the government while others will remain silent. Others may do what you are doing, trying to beat around the bush by making excuses by accusing people of racism. Seriously, the accusations of racism are getting to remind me the boy who cried wold. I don't care who's mug you put up there. We still won't agree this.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @masteraq
        I guess you didn't see the article on here about the man in charge of Detroit's emergency manager, Kevyn Orr. He's a black man, and I didn't see all of the these "Obama haters" you speak of criticizing him. In reality, anything having to do with government, and especially the NHTSA is sure to get a lot of hits. Attempting to make this about race is idiotic at best, and just goes to show how out of touch some of you really are. And let's face, many on the left come out with their pitchforks whenever there is something posted about a Republican in politics. No?
        Matthew Dawson
        • 1 Year Ago
        @masteraq
        Note how David Strickland's name isn't even brought up in the article, yet it's his picture up there. Apparently who he actually is or what he has to do with this isn't important enough to be mentioned.
        Slizzo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @masteraq
        I didn't vote for Obama, but I am so adamantly against proposed laws like this because they circumvent oversight. Doesn't matter who the person is who proposed it, or the color of their skin.
        gop.hates.america
        • 1 Year Ago
        @masteraq
        agreed. Autoblog is becoming the Fox News of auto industry.
      gop.hates.america
      • 1 Year Ago
      Nice job by Autoblog baiting the conservtards and racist trolls. The only thing this article is missing is the word communism.
        Dark Gnat
        • 1 Year Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        Given your username, it seems rather difficult to take your comments at face value.
        Gabbo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        Your comment sure has garnered a high rating, libtard !
      Rex Monaco
      • 1 Year Ago
      Remember when Obama stated, My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Yeah, neither does he.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        A lot of guys will tell a girl just about anything if they think it will get them laid. I think it's safe to say that that's what we witnessed during the 2008 election, and it worked. It's sad, but politicians are nothing but windbags. What's more sad is that we keep letting these people dupe us over, and over, and over again. When are we going to start holding our elected officials accountable? At this rate, we're going to be living in a dictatorship one day.
          Justin Campanale
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          Doesn't that describe Romney a lot more than it describes Obama? Read up on the number of flip-flops Romney went through.
      brandon
      • 1 Year Ago
      No.....A government agency wants the power implement regulation without public consent....IMPOSSIBLE. Government agencies LOVE transparency...... And people still keep voting to give these idiots (both sides mind you) more power. The right wants more power over foreign peoples and the left wants more power over those of us that live domestically. SCREW ALL OF THEM. Why won't you idiots wake up and get rid of them ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
        • 1 Year Ago
        @brandon
        [blocked]
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          Damn you are an idiot. You don't know what a socialist is. YOU ARE A SOCIALIST BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE CORPORATE WELFARE IS OK. Not to mention your stance on the governments regulation of marriage IS F---ING SOCIALIST. I swear I wish people like you would move to another country so those of us that ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the constitution can get back to that way of life. A way of life where the government had VERY LITTLE INVOLVEMENT. That, my friend, is called a libertarian you dipwad. I'm actually an anarchist at heart, but you are too stupid to realize what it is your "party" does. Not to mention , can you give me the actual definition of a "conservative"? Too me, it sounds like you have been watching too much O'Rielly after McCain lost. PS, I HATE obama, but I'm not dumb enough to actually believe we would be in any better of a situation if McCain or Romney had won.
          johnbravo6
          • 1 Year Ago
          You're just as bad as the liberals. "Take my money, and my neighbor's, but spend it the way I want".
          Justin Campanale
          • 1 Year Ago
          Rubio: doesn't know the first thing about economics, history, or foreign policy West: crackpot Santorum: thinks he's running for Grand Ayatollah of America Bachmann: Basically West with lipstick. Almost as illiterate as Palin. Likes to make McCarthy-like accusations. If you honestly think that you'll win with any of these clowns on the ticket, you'll be in for a rude awakening come 2016. As an independent, I would have seriously considered voting for Ron Paul or John Huntsman. Neo-cons like you only hurt your chances when you dismiss the few reasonable candidates in your party as "RINOS.". I used to think that Romney was a half-way decent candidate, but no; he turned out to be a corporate sell-out, had no interest in reducing the debt (most of which was caused by Bush-era policies which weren't even on the books before Obama came into office), and was generally just a liar, hypocrite, and a flip-flopper throughout his entire campaign.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @brandon
        They're too busy reading about the lives of celebrities, and watching ESPN.
      razorpit
      • 1 Year Ago
      Riiiight, and who gets to decide wether the new law is non-contraversial? If a statement such as this came out during the last administration I bet there would be all sorts of screaming and gnashing of teeth.
      Ron Faldik
      • 1 Year Ago
      Its going to take DECADES to undo all these nObama bullshiet laws he's instigating to "take care of us"
      AcidTonic
      • 1 Year Ago
      If they are so non-controversial, we will have no problem quickly approving them through the existing process.... I can only read this as they want the power to quickly pass CONTROVERSIAL laws against our will, or before we've heard media coverage about it to go complain.
        lne937s
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AcidTonic
        There is an extended public comment period. It makes no difference how non-controversial it is, it still takes a long time to impliment. So if an automaker comes out with a new technology that doesn\'t fit the existing regulatory structure, even if it is an improvement in every measurable way, they have to wait for all the red tape to have the regs changed in order to come out with the new product. This can delay a product to market by a year or more.
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2014 Jeep Cherokee
    MSRP: $22,995 - $30,095
    2015 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
    MSRP: $51,800 - $103,200
    2014 Chevrolet Cruze
    MSRP: $17,520 - $24,985