A recent Supreme Court decision could endanger federal regulators’ ability to build cars less likely to kill – including several pending rules aimed at protecting pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users – the nonprofit Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety warns. SCOTUS recently overturned the 40-year-old “Chevron Doctrine of Deference” in a 6-3 decision, essentially telling American courts to no longer “defer” to federal regulatory experts when deciding how best to implement new rules, and giving opponents of those rules more power to challenge them in court – even if the judges aren’t subject matter experts.
That single move, the Washington Post’s Jacob Bogage argues, could “touch nearly every facet of American life,” including the government’s ability to protect workers rights, intellectual property rights and healthcare access, and to rein in tailpipe emissions. It may also impact regulations affecting the rest of the car, including a slate of new and upcoming rules passed under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), aimed at preventing deadly crashes through vehicle technology.
Cathy Chase, president of the nonprofit Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety said that when Congress writes laws aimed at regulating the auto industry, it often intentionally uses ambiguous language to give experts in federal agencies more latitude to write the best rules possible, as “it’s nearly impossible for members of Congress to be issue experts” on all the topics on which they might write laws.
Regulatory language tends to get even more ambiguous as bills go through the bipartisan negotiation process and lawmakers are forced to concede details of new regulations to get them over the finish line. Chase said most of the auto regulations included in the BIL are now vulnerable to challenges in court, including the automatic emergency braking rule, a proposed rule to require impaired driving prevention technology on new cars, and an update to federal auto consumer safety ratings that would, for the first time, consider how well-equipped cars are to avoid crashes with pedestrians and minimize injuries.
Experts worry the absence of the Chevron doctrine will be exploited by those who don’t want the regulations required by the BIL to be implemented. Lobbyists with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation already filed a petition urging NHTSA to reconsider its Automatic Emergency Braking rule, arguing, among other things, that it’s “not practicable” to get a car traveling 40 miles an hour to avoid striking a mannequin. The group can now turn that petition into a full-on lawsuit.
Overturning the Chevron doctrine might also impact autonomous vehicles (AVs), which remain largely unregulated at the federal level, even as pedestrians have lost their lives during tests on public roads. If AV regulations or minimum performance standards were introduced now, powerful companies might have more leeway post-Chevron to shoot them down.
Source: StreetsBlog USA
