Quayle Says Regulations Harm Businesses, Buyers : Policy: He calls environment, consumer groups extremists but acknowledges that some rules are needed to protect the public.

Denouncing his opponents in environmental and consumer groups as “extremists” who would “strangle the free market with red tape,” Vice President Dan Quayle on Tuesday defended his role as the Administration’s anti-regulatory point man.

In a speech before a business-oriented group here, Quayle asserted that Washington “special interests” have failed to learn the free-market lessons now sweeping through Eastern Europe. Washington activists “claim to protect the consumer but, in fact, they are harming the American consumer,” he said.

In recent months, Quayle has used his post as head of the Administration’s Competitiveness Council to lead an aggressive anti-regulatory charge, aimed at cutting the number and scope of new regulations issued by federal agencies.

Quayle’s efforts have been heatedly denounced by environmentalists and their allies, who accuse him of sacrificing public health in the interests of business.

Excessive regulations, Quayle said, “threaten the loss of American jobs, place billions of hours of needless government paperwork on America’s small businessmen and women, impose millions of dollars of unnecessary federal mandates on our cities and towns, and last--but certainly not least--raise the cost of products to America’s consumers.

“Obviously, some regulations are necessary to protect public health and safety,” Quayle said. “But the reality is that many regulations are unnecessary and don’t really protect anyone.”

As an example of unnecessary regulation, Quayle cited proposals to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles.

“Everyone is in favor of conserving energy,” Quayle said. But, he argued, a proposed increase in the standard to an average of 40 miles per gallon “would have been simply devastating for the American auto industry and would have cost thousands of jobs.”

Moreover, Quayle said, echoing a charge that has been widely publicized by groups representing the auto industry, the higher fuel economy standard would have a “devastating” effect on highway safety. “Even the most conservative estimates place the bill’s toll in human lives at 900 to 1,700 additional highway fatalities each year and up to 17,000 additional serious injuries each year,” Quayle said.

In fact, those estimates, which are based on the assumption that average fuel economy can be increased only by decreasing the average size of cars, have been the subject of intense disagreement. Supporters of the bill argue that the auto makers can greatly improve fuel economy with new technology and without decreasing the average size of cars.

“The vice president is simply misinformed,” said Daniel F. Becker of the Sierra Club, a chief backer of increasing mileage standards.