FIA, SEMA Join Forces to Shape US Auto Safety Regulations
A new partnership between two major auto industry organizations is poised to change the way Americans buy, rent, operate, accessorize and repair their vehicles. The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a non-profit global governing body for motorsports, has accepted the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) as a full member to represent the U.S.
The working agreement is designed to give an amplified voice to the auto industry, which has a $337 billion annual impact, in the country.
"This alliance unites two powerful forces. SEMA's deep connection to American car culture and the FIA's global leadership in mobility and safety. Together, we are shaping US transportation policy to better serve everyday consumers. As decisions are made at both national and international levels about the future of mobility, we're at the table to ensure the voice of real car owners is heard, championing innovation, safety, personal freedom, and sustainable growth through thought leadership and global best practice," Willem Groenewald, FIA secretary general for mobility, told Newsweek.
There are five areas the partnership has eyed to impact: safer vehicles, a unified voice, aftermarket freedom of choice, economic opportunity and protecting motoring heritage.
A driver uses the Super Cruise hands-free advanced driver assistance system in an Escalade IQ SUV.
A driver uses the Super Cruise hands-free advanced driver assistance system in an Escalade IQ SUV.
General Motors
In its crosshairs are real world applications for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). "As cars are increasingly equipped with ADAS, and globally we are seeing a clear advancement in autonomous vehicles, having both SEMA and the FIA at the table ensures that safety standards reflect real-world driving needs, not just abstract regulations. Safer, more reliable systems that are driver focused, with both organizations working as independent consumer champions," Groenewald said.
When it comes to rulemaking, the partnership is expected to be particularly fruitful. "The combined credibility of SEMA and FIA will help ensure we have a seat at the table for these discussions, particularly as discussions kick off to reauthorize the Federal Highway Bill. That bill will have major implications to transportation policy, with particular focus on mandated technology in new vehicles," Karen Bailey-Chapman, SEMA's senior vice president for public and government affairs, said.
Bailey-Chapman used the example of the recent passage of a law in California to show the might of the partnership. "We're also already seeing the impact of this relationship in California, where FIA submitted a letter of support for Leno's Law (SB 712), which seeks to preserve California's rich automotive history by exempting vehicles 35 years or older from the state's stringent smog check requirements, ensuring that these iconic cars remain on the road and remain a part of California's cultural identity when entered into private vehicle collections."
"With less than one percent of vehicles in the state eligible under this law, the environmental impact would be negligible, yet this is a key step in protecting historic vehicles and aligning with legislation cross-globally," Groenewald added.
The partnership intends to make the drivers of today and tomorrow in focus, to be their voice and advocates. "Drivers need someone in their corner who can speak to their needs as vehicle owners, and that's a role that SEMA and FIA have played for years. It can be seen in how closely aligned our organizations are on issues like preserving automotive culture, of finding ways to embrace and foster new automotive technologies and innovation in a practical way, and in preserving the rights of families and businesses to choose the vehicles that are best for them," Bailey-Chapman said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Littelfuse (NASDAQ:LFUS) Will Pay A Larger Dividend Than Last Year At $0.75
Littelfuse, Inc. (NASDAQ:LFUS) will increase its dividend from last year's comparable payment on the 4th of September to $0.75. The payment will take the dividend yield to 1.2%, which is in line with the average for the industry. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Littelfuse's Future Dividend Projections Appear Well Covered By Earnings Unless the payments are sustainable, the dividend yield doesn't mean too much. The last dividend was quite easily covered by Littelfuse's earnings. This indicates that quite a large proportion of earnings is being invested back into the business. According to analysts, EPS should be several times higher next year. Assuming the dividend continues along recent trends, we think the payout ratio will be 19%, which makes us pretty comfortable with the sustainability of the dividend. See our latest analysis for Littelfuse Littelfuse Has A Solid Track Record The company has a sustained record of paying dividends with very little fluctuation. Since 2015, the annual payment back then was $1.00, compared to the most recent full-year payment of $3.00. This means that it has been growing its distributions at 12% per annum over that time. So, dividends have been growing pretty quickly, and even more impressively, they haven't experienced any notable falls during this period. The Dividend Has Growth Potential Investors could be attracted to the stock based on the quality of its payment history. It's encouraging to see that Littelfuse has been growing its earnings per share at 7.4% a year over the past five years. Since earnings per share is growing at an acceptable rate, and the payout policy is balanced, we think the company is positioning itself well to grow earnings and dividends in the future. Littelfuse Looks Like A Great Dividend Stock In summary, it is always positive to see the dividend being increased, and we are particularly pleased with its overall sustainability. Distributions are quite easily covered by earnings, which are also being converted to cash flows. Taking this all into consideration, this looks like it could be a good dividend opportunity. Companies possessing a stable dividend policy will likely enjoy greater investor interest than those suffering from a more inconsistent approach. Still, investors need to consider a host of other factors, apart from dividend payments, when analysing a company. As an example, we've identified 2 warning signs for Littelfuse that you should be aware of before investing. Is Littelfuse not quite the opportunity you were looking for? Why not check out our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Possible Bearish Signals With Nasdaq Insiders Disposing Stock
Over the past year, many Nasdaq, Inc. (NASDAQ:NDAQ) insiders sold a significant stake in the company which may have piqued investors' interest. Knowing whether insiders are buying is usually more helpful when evaluating insider transactions, as insider selling can have various explanations. However, when multiple insiders sell stock over a specific duration, shareholders should take notice as that could possibly be a red flag. Although we don't think shareholders should simply follow insider transactions, we do think it is perfectly logical to keep tabs on what insiders are doing. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Nasdaq Insider Transactions Over The Last Year The Executive VP, Bradley Peterson, made the biggest insider sale in the last 12 months. That single transaction was for US$1.0m worth of shares at a price of US$75.38 each. So it's clear an insider wanted to take some cash off the table, even below the current price of US$94.68. As a general rule we consider it to be discouraging when insiders are selling below the current price, because it suggests they were happy with a lower valuation. Please do note, however, that sellers may have a variety of reasons for selling, so we don't know for sure what they think of the stock price. We note that the biggest single sale was only 8.7% of Bradley Peterson's holding. Over the last year we saw more insider selling of Nasdaq shares, than buying. You can see the insider transactions (by companies and individuals) over the last year depicted in the chart below. If you click on the chart, you can see all the individual transactions, including the share price, individual, and the date! Check out our latest analysis for Nasdaq If you like to buy stocks that insiders are buying, rather than selling, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: Most of them are flying under the radar). Insiders At Nasdaq Have Sold Stock Recently Over the last three months, we've seen significant insider selling at Nasdaq. Specifically, insiders ditched US$2.1m worth of shares in that time, and we didn't record any purchases whatsoever. Overall this makes us a bit cautious, but it's not the be all and end all. Insider Ownership Another way to test the alignment between the leaders of a company and other shareholders is to look at how many shares they own. We usually like to see fairly high levels of insider ownership. It's great to see that Nasdaq insiders own 0.6% of the company, worth about US$342m. I like to see this level of insider ownership, because it increases the chances that management are thinking about the best interests of shareholders. So What Do The Nasdaq Insider Transactions Indicate? Insiders sold stock recently, but they haven't been buying. Despite some insider buying, the longer term picture doesn't make us feel much more positive. On the plus side, Nasdaq makes money, and is growing profits. It is good to see high insider ownership, but the insider selling leaves us cautious. While it's good to be aware of what's going on with the insider's ownership and transactions, we make sure to also consider what risks are facing a stock before making any investment decision. While conducting our analysis, we found that Nasdaq has 2 warning signs and it would be unwise to ignore them. Of course Nasdaq may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of high quality companies. For the purposes of this article, insiders are those individuals who report their transactions to the relevant regulatory body. We currently account for open market transactions and private dispositions of direct interests only, but not derivative transactions or indirect interests. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
