 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NHTS'A Response: Caution, Disinterest or FundingPosted 10/13/2000By Robert L. Redding, Jr.
The recent flurry of media attention on Firestone's tire recall causes scrutiny of an agency delegated the duties of keeping our highways and automobiles used on these highways safe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) mission is “to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce traffic-related health care and other costs. The agency develops, promotes and implements effective educational, engineering and enforcement programs directed toward ending preventable tragedies and reducing safety-related economic costs associated with vehicle use and highway travel.” The Firestone scenario sheds light on the agency's recent past at dealing with critical problems. A closer look at the agency's goals, emphasis and responses to issues reflects on an agency that probably will not deal with multiple concerns of the automotive aftermarket without some pending crisis or public outrage. A reactionary agenda does not allow for substantive input without significant media attention or public outcry. A brief review of aftermarket issues correlated with how NHTSA shapes up in policy development gives both mechanical and collision repairers a more complete view of NHTSA and its vision. To its credit, NHTSA's role is an important part of American transportation. Whether it's seat belts, air bags, drunk driving or a meticulous review of new automobiles, its role is integral to the daily life of the motoring public. NHTSA was named by the President's Office of Management and Budget as one of only 10 “exemplary” federal agencies in the Government Performance and Results Act program. This was a product of its traffic fatalities and injuries tracking system as well as strategic planning, managing change and driving accountability “deeper into the organization,” according to NHTSA. NHTSA considers its primary goal as traffic safety, although if you review NHTSA's long-term objectives, this is defined more clearly as reducing highway fatalities and injuries 20 percent by the year 2008. This is interpreted to mean a reduction in fatalities from 42,065 in 1996 to 33,500 in 2008. Injuries, under NHTSA's goals, would drop from 3,511,000 in 1996 to 2,809,000 in 2008. The strategy for this reduction includes:
But it's the strategy plan's description of activities to reach these goals that demonstrates the aftermarket's frustration on a smorgasbord of issues. These activities include programs for:
There are three principal areas where NHTSA has not taken a leadership role for issues prioritized by the aftermarket:
There are certainly categories that would include our issues, but as the above-mentioned categories are scrutinized, it is obvious that these priorities are not to be. Two of the aftermarket's priorities should be included in the Safety Assurance program: replacement crash parts and safety inspection and maintenance. Not to be. The Safety Assurance activities revolve around manufacturer compliance — not crash parts manufacturers, but original equipment manufacturers for new vehicles. As for the safety inspection, this is limited to the vehicle just prior to the showroom presentation. The Automotive Service Association (ASA) challenged this some time ago by conducting a crash parts demonstration for the chief of the Safety Assurance program. NHTSA has not seen fit to move forward on any type of crash parts review. U.S. Rep. Ron Klink, D-Pa., has requested a General Accounting Office Review of NHTSA's regulatory role as to crash parts. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is conducting the investigation this year. In meetings with the previous administrator as to the future of vehicle safety inspection and maintenance, it was made clear to ASA that NHTSA was fond of state inspection and maintenance programs, but did not have the funds to conduct a study correlating the reduction of accidents, injuries and fatalities with safety inspection and maintenance programs despite an earlier GAO report that praised these programs and encouraged NHTSA to collect such important data. Finally, the media has portrayed the air bag dilemma as limited to injuries and deaths involving children and smaller adults sitting in the front seats of vehicles. Although ASA has brought the commerce in these used and salvage air bags to NHTSA's attention, as of yet there has been little interest shown. One might argue that NHTSA's resources have been consumed by responses to special interest groups and the media. Clearly rollover has been the top issue of safety advocacy interests and could possibly be the next “high priority” for the agency. Congress has added language in the Senate to the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill that would block NHTSA from implementing a new rating system for a vehicle's propensity to roll over. NHTSA's action was immediate after air bag victims' families went to the media about the danger of air bags for children and smaller adults. Congressional hearings were held and the rule-making process began. Safety advocates argue that NHTSA's inaction on some major issues is a direct result of Congress's drastic cuts in their budget. This may be true to a degree, but it is obvious that even if the funds were available, assuming that lack of funding is a deterrent, NHTSA's long-term strategy ignores the aftermarket's top priorities.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright (c) 1996-2008. Automotive Service Association. All rights reserved.
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
