Re: Remind Me to Never Get Stuck on a Tarmac

I like your idea of the Federal law providing a floor and not a ceiling, but without clear guidance in the Federal law, wouldn't it be somewhat problematic to have the courts decide what counts as an improvement over existing regulations and what doesn't? Would a law requiring cars to run on Ethanol be better? Or worse? It depends on what you think about the environmental claims of Ethanol. The same goes for any number of regulations.

Furthermore, while it sounds fine for companies to simply "use the higher standards as the de facto regulation for the entire country", that kind of situation is exactly what the courts are concerned about, as it completely undercuts the point of federal sovereignty over these issues and gives the most extreme states control over the entire country's regulations.

Take Utah. Utah applies fairly stringent public health regulations to some of its consumer products. These regulations have proven effective at reducing automobile fatalities and health complications, so by those accounts the regulations are "better." Modifying the product for the Utah market imposes a substantial cost on the manufacturers of the product, so by your logic, those manufacturers should simply use Utah's regulation for their product for the entire country.

And now we're all drinking 3.2% beer. Be careful what you wish for.