Nissan exempt for new and current CAFE Requirements

[jasonj80]

Energy Bill Would Extend Nissan Exemption on Fuel Economy

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A deal in Congress to raise fuel efficiency standards would extend for two years an exemption that was granted to Nissan Motor Co. in 2004 to help it comply with the gas-mileage requirements.

 

The extension is included in an energy bill backed by Nissan, which has sought more flexibility and reforms in new fuel economy standards being considered by Congress. The House is expected to consider the measure this week that would lead to a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current levels.

 

Dominique Thormann, Nissan's senior vice president for administration and finance, said Wednesday that the company supports the legislation because it would give the industry flexibility to meet the standards, raise fuel efficiency for many vehicles and not mandate one specific type of technology.

 

"What's on the table today is a good deal," Thormann said at a luncheon with reporters.

 

In 2005, Nissan received an exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from the "two-fleet rule," which requires automakers to calculate the average fuel economy of their domestic- and foreign-made passenger cars. Each fleet must meet the standard of 27.5 mpg.....

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071205/fuel_economy_nissan.html?.v=1

[igor]

WOW .... and people wonder that I despise US politicians - the whole system really.

 

Igor

[Michael Reynolds]

:gang:

 

How generous of NHTSA. Flippin morons!

[one2gamble]

wtf, thats insane

[the_spaniard]

Wow. All I can say is wow. :huh:

 

The worst kind of bullsh*t, and I own a Nissan. If anyone needs the CAFE regs it's Nissan. IMO the Q is still the best V6 money can buy, but damn it gulps fuel like crazy, and may be why they are whining.

 

WOW .... and people wonder that I despise US politicians - the whole system really.

 

Seconded.

Edited December 6, 2007 by the_spaniard

[Moosetang]

Ad me to the WTF crowd.

[LincolnFan]

What? why the hell didn't anyone raise a freaking Objection?!

[Hydro]

What? why the hell didn't anyone raise a freaking Objection?!

 

"Thormann said at a luncheon with reporters" they probally provided some damn good food and nobody wanted to upset the host

[CarShark]

What? why the hell didn't anyone raise a freaking Objection?!

I didn't even know the exemption existed in the first place! Of course, Nissan's on board with this. They won't have to follow it.

[ToBeHuman]

Actually the exemption was supposed to encourage Nissan to built their cars with more American content. Here is the summary:

 

SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) filed a petition requesting exemption from the two-fleet rule for the 2006-2010 model years. The two-fleet rule, which is contained in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) statute, requires that a manufacturer divide its passenger automobiles into two fleets, a domestically-manufactured fleet and a non-domestically manufactured fleet, and ensure that each fleet separately meets the CAFE standards for passenger automobiles.

 

Nissan filed the petition because a change under the statute in the treatment of value added to a vehicle in Mexico will cause one of that company's passenger automobiles, which is manufactured in Mexico, to be reclassified from non-domestic to domestic. The loss of these automobiles, which are relatively fuel-efficient, will cause its non-domestic fleet to fail to comply with the CAFE standards for passenger automobiles.

 

The CAFE statute requires the agency to grant such a petition unless it finds that doing so would result in reduced employment in the U.S. related to motor vehicle manufacturing. To determine if such a reduction would result, NHTSA compared vehicle prices and sales under two scenarios: a baseline scenario in which Nissan would not have an exemption and would need either to pay penalties for noncompliance or adopt any one of a number of optional courses of action to achieve compliance; and a scenario in which Nissan would have an exemption and would not bear any of the costs of the baseline scenario. The agency then attempted to estimate the effect of the sales changes on employment for each of the options. The analysis indicated virtually no employment effect for the option most likely (on the basis of cost) to be chosen by Nissan and only slight negative employment effects for the other options.

 

Nissan also pointed out employment effects that are not accounted for in our economic analysis. If we deny the petition, Nissan would likely purchase fewer parts from U.S. suppliers and more parts from foreign suppliers in order to recontent one of its vehicles. The result would be fewer American workers producing components to be used in Nissan cars. We are unable to quantify with precision the number of jobs potentially lost from denying the petition. It is likely, however, that more jobs would be lost if we deny the petition than would be lost if we grant it.

 

In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that granting the petition would reduce motor vehicle manufacturing employment in the U.S. The evidence suggests instead that granting the petition would likely help retain American jobs that might otherwise be sent overseas. Accordingly, the agency will permit Nissan to combine its domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleet for model years 2006-2010.

 

Or you can read the whole thing here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/Rulem...etition2004.htm

[rmc523]

I don't understand why Nissan is able to be exempt while everybody else has to comply with the regulations. It seems like as the article quoted, the NHTSA is giving Nissan a competitive advantage.