The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) proposed rule to introduce a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) aimed at pedestrian head protection is a misguided attempt to address a complex issue through heavy-handed regulation. The initiative, which seeks to adopt the Global Technical Regulation No. 9 (GTR 9) on pedestrian safety, imposes unnecessary burdens on the automotive industry while offering questionable benefits to public safety. This proposal reflects broader concerns about the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to fundamentally manipulate the U.S. auto industry, with significant implications for costs, jobs, and consumer choice.
Increased Automobile Costs: A Hidden Tax on Consumers
The proposed rule mandates vehicle manufacturers to redesign the front hoods of passenger cars, light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), and certain buses to meet specific head injury criteria in simulated pedestrian collisions at speeds up to 25 mph. NHTSA argues that these changes are necessary to mitigate head injuries for child and adult pedestrians; however, the cost of compliance will inevitably be passed on to consumers.
Despite NHTSA’s assertion that the redesign costs will be "negligible," the reality is that even small changes to vehicle design can ripple through the manufacturing process, affecting the entire front-end structure of a vehicle. This isn't merely a "one-time" adjustment; it's a redesign that impacts multiple aspects of vehicle development, testing, and assembly. For vehicles such as pickup trucks and SUVs—segments that make up about 22% of U.S. passenger vehicle sales—this could mean substantial cost increases. Add to this a $10,000 certification fee per model for compliance testing, and the economic burden becomes evident. For American families, who are already grappling with inflation and rising interest rates, these additional costs represent a hidden tax that makes it even harder to afford a new car.
Questionable Risk Assessments and Dubious Safety Claims
The proposed standard aims to reduce approximately 67.4 pedestrian fatalities annually, according to NHTSA's estimates. But the agency provides little to no data explaining how these numbers were calculated. The projected benefits appear dubious at best, especially when considering that the proposal targets vehicles for modifications based on a relatively narrow set of accident scenarios.
Furthermore, NHTSA's reliance on Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) technology as a complementary measure raises questions about the efficacy of this rule. AEB systems were originally designed to prevent collisions with other vehicles, not pedestrians. Rapid advancements in AEB technology do not guarantee reliable pedestrian protection, and reshaping regulations around an emerging technology introduces significant uncertainty. The proposal essentially bets on unproven technology rather than providing concrete evidence that these changes will genuinely enhance pedestrian safety.
The Threat to American Auto Worker Jobs
This rulemaking comes at a time when the auto industry is already undergoing significant transformations, including the shift toward electric vehicles (EVs) and automation. Mandating costly new safety requirements could jeopardize the economic viability of some vehicle models, leading to reduced production and potential job losses in manufacturing plants, particularly those producing trucks and SUVs, which are popular among American consumers.
Moreover, automakers operating on "uniquely American platforms" may face higher compliance hurdles compared to companies using international platforms that already integrate some GTR standards. This puts U.S. auto workers at a disadvantage, as domestic manufacturers may be forced to either shift production overseas or cut costs through layoffs and automation. In an industry where competition is global, additional regulatory constraints could further erode America's manufacturing base.
A Play into the Hands of Globalization and Loss of Consumer Choice
The adoption of GTR 9, a United Nations regulation, signals an alignment with global standards that erodes the distinctiveness of American manufacturing. It represents a form of regulatory globalization, where domestic policy is dictated by international norms rather than tailored to American conditions. This rule effectively homogenizes the auto market, forcing U.S. businesses to comply with standards developed in a global context that may not adequately reflect the needs and preferences of American drivers.
The proposal also threatens consumer choice by limiting the availability of certain vehicles. As automakers adjust their lineups to meet the new standards, models that do not easily conform to the requirements may be phased out. For example, larger SUVs and pickup trucks may be deemed unfit under the new pedestrian safety criteria. This regulatory pressure prioritizes perceived safety gains over the consumer's right to choose the vehicle that best suits their lifestyle and needs.
The Biden-Harris Administration's Broader Agenda
This rulemaking aligns with a broader pattern under the Biden-Harris administration of using regulatory power to steer the auto industry in a particular direction. From aggressive fuel economy standards to subsidies for electric vehicles, there is a clear attempt to reshape the market according to a specific vision of transportation that favors certain technologies and regulatory frameworks over others. While safety is a legitimate concern, the means of achieving it should not involve coercive measures that disrupt the market and impose costs on consumers and workers alike.
Conclusion: A Need for Sensible Regulatory Policy
The NHTSA's pedestrian protection proposal exemplifies regulatory overreach. It imposes significant costs on automakers, threatens American jobs, and limits consumer choice, all while providing questionable safety benefits. A more balanced approach would focus on encouraging voluntary compliance through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and fostering technological innovation without mandating rigid and costly requirements.
If the goal is to genuinely improve pedestrian safety, policy should focus on more comprehensive measures such as better urban planning, enhanced traffic law enforcement, and driver education, rather than reshaping the automotive industry at the expense of American workers and consumers. As the November 18 deadline for public comments approaches, stakeholders should voice their concerns and advocate for a more sensible path forward.
Comments