Quote:
Originally Posted by CapriRacer
Update:
This month (June 2024) NHTSA was supposed to issue a new regulation covering rolling resistance in tires and how that would be displayed - according to a report of pending regulations published by DOT in Sep 2023. That has not happened. If you read back in this thread, you will see that they (NHTSA) has repeatedly postponed the issuing of the regulation starting in 2010.
I expect them to kick the can down the road again. I think the only reason they published a date was because Cailfornia was threating to issue their own regulation. It is now clear that California isn't going to do that.
Speaking of California, the last action taken was to accept an agreement of confidentiality from the USTMA (US Tire Manufacturers Association) for a data file in Sep, 2023. That file contained an analysis of all the data presented to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Part of that analysis was sure to contain the fact that over 90% of tires currently for sale would be banned if the regulation went forward without revision - and that, of course, is not workable. Unfortunately, the law that the CEC was working against did not allow for any alternatives. Since I have not seen anything since then I suspect the issue is dead. I suspect the California legislature would need to issue another law to fix the problem - and I don't think they will.
Meanwhile the state of Washington's legislature was working on a law very similar to the California law. They obviously ran into the same problem California did, but in this case the law never made it out of committee, so it's dead as well.
I'll provide any updates if there are any.
|
Under the Federal, Clinton-era, 'Mutual Agreement on Investments' ( MAI ), the State of California ( taxpayers ) would likely be obligated to compensate tire makers for any lost profits from the curtailment in sales of certain products, 'banned' under conditions spelled out in the 'policy.'
And these payments would continue into the future, perhaps over some proscribed phase-out period, like Asbestos, Fen-Fen, DDT, Heroin, Opium, Coca, Oxycontin, Tetraethyl lead, CFCs, Red Dye#2, Cyclamates, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( MTBE ), Diesel de-sulfurization, etc..
'Contracts' are sacrosanct in the USA, and corporations cannot be expected to 'eat' losses on fixed-assets, tooling, R&D, inventory, assembly lines, etc., stemming from what would be experienced as some ex-post-facto ruling, directly impacting extant, 'lawful' operations.
Sacramento would become the venue for the World Heavyweight Championship, attracting corporate lobbyists from around the globe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt, the attempted LRR mandate is part of the State's carbon-neutral calculus. And it's perfectly logical, if one is trying to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. LRR = reduced methane, carbon-dioxide, ground level ozone, etc.
If public education taught 'reading, writing, 'rithmetic, critical thinking, and a primer on capitalism, consumers might 'see' the 'wisdom' in 'thrift', more with less, savings, net worth, risk avoidance, credit...................
Consumption habituation would organically change with the 'knowledge', and the complexion of the 'market' would evolve along with the 'free hand'.