[Senate Hearing 112-330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-330
IMPROVING HIGHWAY AND VEHICLE SAFETY:
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-540 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROY BLUNT, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK WARNER, Virginia MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Staff Director
Jarrod Thompson, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
TOM UDALL, New Mexico DEAN HELLER, Nevada
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 27, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Toomey...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 11
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 57
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 59
Witnesses
Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates)........................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Hon. Nicole Mason, Former National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrator.................................................. 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Vehicle Safety and
Harmonization, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). 44
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Vernon Betkey, Chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association.... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Appendix
Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. David L.
Strickland by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 65
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 66
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 67
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 68
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 69
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 69
Response to written questions submitted to Susan Fleming by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 70
Response to written questions submitted to Jacqueline S. Gillan
by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 72
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 73
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Nicole Nason by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 73
Response to written questions submitted to Robert Strassburger
by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 74
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 75
Response to written questions submitted to Vernon Betkey by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 77
The Hertz Corporation, prepared statement........................ 80
Jan Withers, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD), prepared statement..................................... 84
American Car Rental Association, prepared statement.............. 86
IMPROVING HIGHWAY AND VEHICLE SAFETY:
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product
Safety, and Insurance,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. We are going to call our meeting to order.
I want to thank everyone for being here. We have a full
house today. We have some Senators who are coming and going. I
know that Senator Rockefeller is working on the FAA bill. He is
going to try to come by if he can, but he is trying to get that
moved. I know I would rather him be there and work that out.
But, anyway, I am glad that everyone is here. I want to welcome
everyone to the Subcommittee today.
We are here to discuss the reauthorization of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA. We will also
discuss how to improve safety standards in our vehicles and
safety programs on our roadways.
Today, we will hear from witnesses that represent the
executive branch, the states, the automotive industry, and
automotive safety advocates.
I would like to start by thanking all of them for taking
their time to be here today and for preparing their written
testimony, and I hope that we're able to find common ground in
improving safety on our roads and in our vehicles.
The witnesses will provide us with a better understanding
of NHTSA's two core missions; vehicle safety and highway
safety. By improving in both areas, we hope to continue to
reduce traffic fatalities. I was pleased to hear that the
number of traffic fatalities fell 3 percent between 2009 and
2010. But with over 32,000 traffic fatalities last year
throughout our country, we need to keep on the right track in
improving safety.
Many of us may not think of how important traffic and
vehicle safety can be until tragedy strikes. Unfortunately,
many Americans have been touched personally by traffic
fatalities. That is why I, along with Senator Rockefeller, have
introduced the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act
of 2011 or, Mariah's Law, which aims to reduce the number of
lives lost on roadway accidents. This law was named for the
family of the high school student, Mariah West, from Rogers,
Arkansas, who was killed in 2009. The day before her high
school graduation in 2009, Mariah West was killed as a result
of texting while driving.
She lost control of her car, clipped a bridge and flipped
into oncoming traffic to her death. Mariah's mother, Mary, has
since become an advocate against distracted driving.
In part, Mariah's Law will prevent others from a similar
tragedy by concentrating resources to prevent distracted
driving.
In 2009, more than 5,400 people died, and about half a
million were hurt in crashes involving a distracted or
inattentive driver.
This bill will also strengthen programs designed to stop
dangerous driving behavior and step up vehicle safety so that
families are protected by strong safety standards and devices
when an accident does occur.
Other provisions in the bill would update and consolidate
highway safety programs, address emerging electronics and
technologies in vehicles, prioritize transparency and
accountability with vehicle investigations, and improve child
safety.
I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller for his input on this
legislation that he and I have worked on in recent weeks to
improve safety. I believe our legislation represents a
reasonable, strong, smart, and lasting approach for dealing
roadway and automobile safety concerns.
Again, thank you to our witnesses and the visitors for
attending today's hearing, and thank Senator Toomey for being
here, and I'd like to recognize you for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. TOOMEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Toomey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks for holding this hearing today. I am sure there is not
one of us that disputes the vital importance of vehicle safety.
I think we also would acknowledge that we have got to make sure
that we strive to play our modest role in contributing to that
in the most efficient manner possible. And I think that we
ought to acknowledge and recognize, as I am sure we all do,
that manufacturers have an incentive to provide safe products
and consumers will demand safe products as well.
With that in mind, I will have a number of issues that I
want to raise with the reauthorization bill in its current
form. In its current form, I couldn't support this legislation,
but it is certainly my hope that we can work together and get
to a place where I can support it. I would like to be able to
support this.
And let me just touch on a few of the concerns that I have
at this point in the legislation. Some have to do with mandates
that are new and in this draft. Others have to do with the
level of the total cost. I'm a little concerned about new
mandates requiring disclosure regarding early warning data
provisions.
I have concerns about unintended consequences that would be
associated with those provisions.
I'm concerned about the increased costs that are associated
with some of the new mandates on the event data recorders, and
concerned about the way that it is/they are being implemented,
given the development of this technology.
I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the increases in the
civil penalties for defect violations and the impact that that
will have on the cost to consumers. And I am concerned,
frankly, that one of the things that I think is an important
component of vehicle safety is not addressed in this bill, and
that's the effect that CAFE standards have. I think there is
mounting and very solid evidence that the weight productions
that are effectively mandated by these CAFE standards result in
increased fatalities, and I think we ought to find a way to
address that.
And, then, finally, I'm concerned about the cost of this
bill. The chart over my shoulder is a chart that shows the
increase in cost of this agency over the course of the last 10
years. And since 2003 through last year, the spending has
doubled. Now, I would argue that this is a microcosm of exactly
why we are in the spot that we are in right now with very large
deficits and a very significant budgetary problem.
It's obviously not a relatively small agency that is
causing our big budget problems, but it is the fact that this
is not atypical of the Government as a whole. We have doubled
the size of the Government since 2000. And when we do that, we
find ourselves in very difficult circumstances. So, I would
like to see if we can explore ways to do more with less because
I think that is something that we are going to need to do.
In any case, I appreciate your holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman, and look forward to working with you. And I want to
thank the witnesses for being here today.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And our Senators who are in
attendance today decided they'd like to submit their opening
statements for the record in order to get on to the first
panel.
And our panelist today, our witness is the Hon. David L.
Strickland. He is the Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Strickland, welcome. I should say welcome back to the
Committee. Thank you for being here again today and thank you
for your service on this Committee and also where you are
today.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Toomey, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Udall. Thank you so much for the
opportunity to be back here in front of the Senate Commerce
Committee to discuss the future of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. It is very important work, and I know
that you guys are all collectively very interested in what we
do and collectively for the entire Department as a whole.
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
data, the Nation maintained a steady downward trend in traffic-
related fatalities last year. While the projected number of
32,788 deaths in 2010 is still too many, it is the lowest
number of fatalities since 1949.
Even more encouraging, the Nation's fatality rate is 1.09
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, continuing its
downward trend over the last 25 years. In spite of these
encouraging trends, we face many challenges in maintaining and
accelerating these improving numbers.
Alcohol-impaired traffic-related fatalities account for 32
percent of the Nation's losses. Approximately half of all
occupant fatalities in traffic crashes are unbelted.
Distracted driving is a growing concern, and many areas
around the country are facing increased risks to pedestrians.
I commend this Committee's work on reauthorization
discussion draft, which includes certain helpful enhancements.
While the Administration has not formally commented on this
discussion draft, which will limit my remarks, I will be happy
to discuss the issues generally and with more specificity where
technical assistance was provided to the Committee.
I'd like to begin my policy remarks on the issue of
motorcycle safety. Between 2004 and 2009, the number of
motorcycle crash fatalities increased by 11 percent to 4,462.
Between 2008 and 2009, I'm happy to report that the number of
motorcycle fatalities fell 16 percent, the first decrease that
we have seen in more than a decade. I firmly believe that we
can build upon that progress. The most important step that we
can take to reduce the deaths of motorcyclists on our roads and
highways is to assure that all riders wear a DOT-compliant
helmet.
The agency looks forward to working with the Committee to
find an effective and flexible means to increase helmet usage.
As you know, Secretary LaHood and I have been outspoken
about the dangers of distracted driving, and, Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to thank you and Mr. Rockefeller for your hard work on
this issue as well. And we support a robust program to counter
this program as presented in the reauthorization draft.
As reflected in the technical assistance provided to the
Committee, the agency would provide--ask for two modifications
to this particular draft. Regarding the distraction grant
criteria, the agency requests the provision of an authority to
develop qualifying criteria through notice and comment
rulemaking.
Second, to close the safety authority gap regarding
portable electronic devices in vehicles, the agency
respectfully asks for the authority to develop in-vehicle
safety performance standards for these devices pertaining to
driver use.
NHTSA also thanks the Committee for the provision of the
new authority over used and rental vehicles in this draft. I,
in particular, would like to call attention to Sections 411 and
412 dealing with noncompliant or defective conditions in used
passenger vehicles and rental vehicles. These two provisions
would protect consumers in a significant segment of the motor
vehicle population that NHTSA currently cannot reach
effectively.
The draft also contains a large number of rulemaking
provisions with some relatively short time frames allowed for
completion. However, I do appreciate the inclusion of the
provision that would permit the agency, when necessary, to
lengthen those time frames and explain to the Committee for
jurisdiction why it must do so.
NHTSA looks forward to working with the Committee and the
Congress to share our thinking on rulemaking priorities and
developing a consensus rulemaking agenda that will address
risks to the driving public.
One provision of the draft would also impose stricter post-
employment restriction on NHTSA employees. I believe that the
Obama administration had the highest, the most comprehensive
standards regarding ethics of any Administration.
Secretary LaHood holds the staff of the entire Department
to the highest ethical standard. If there is any evidence of
violation of these rules, swift and appropriate actions will be
taken.
The agency looks forward to the opportunity to discuss
effective and federally consistent ethics process improvements.
Again, I would like to thank and commend the Committee and
its staff for a thoughtful and comprehensive draft. I would
like to, however, once again offer our assistance if requested,
and I'm happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to return to the Commerce Committee to testify on surface
transportation reauthorization. As a staffer on the Commerce Committee,
I had the opportunity to work on the last surface transportation
reauthorization, SAFETEA-LU. Now I have the distinct honor of
representing the Obama Administration in working with this Committee
and the Congress to shape NHTSA's future. While my vantage point may be
different, rest assured that I am as deeply committed to this
reauthorization now as I was during SAFETEA-LU.
According to NHTSA data, the Nation maintained a steady downward
trend in traffic related fatalities last year. While the projected
number of 32,788 deaths in 2010 is still too many, it is the lowest
number of fatalities since 1949. Even more heartening, the Nation's
fatality rate is 1.09 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and
has been on a downward trend for 25 years.
At the same time, we continue to face many challenges in ensuring
ongoing improvement. Alcohol-impaired driving continues to account for
32 percent of the Nation's traffic-related fatalities. Approximately
half of occupant fatalities in traffic crashes are unbelted. Along with
these more mature challenges, distracted driving is an increasing
concern, and many areas around the country are facing increased risks
to pedestrians.
Improving NHTSA's statutory authority would better enable the
agency to address these and other highway safety issues. The
Committee's reauthorization discussion draft includes certain helpful
enhancements. While the Administration has not formally commented on
the discussion draft, which will limit my remarks, I will be happy to
discuss the issues generally and with more specificity where technical
assistance was provided to the Committee.
Streamlining the Grants Process
First, I want to compliment the Committee on its proposal for
streamlining the grant process for states and promoting performance-
based approaches and accountability. I believe that the Committee's
provision to establish a single grant application deadline, along with
efforts to consolidate reporting and applications, will allow states to
spend less time on administrative details, and more time developing and
implementing effective safety countermeasures.
Motorcycles
Between 2004 and 2009, the number of motorcycle crash fatalities
increased from just over 4,000 to 4,462; an 11 percent increase. The
number of motorcycle fatalities fell 16 percent between 2008 and 2009,
the first time there has been a decrease in more than a decade. I
firmly believe that we can build on that progress. The most important
step we can take to reduce the deaths of motorcyclists on our roads and
highways is to assure that all riders wear a DOT-compliant helmet.
A grant program emphasizing the use of motorcycle helmets would be
effective in reducing fatalities. NHTSA's data show that, between 2005
and 2009, motorcycle helmets saved more than 8,000 lives. NHTSA
estimates that the use of motorcycle helmets by motorcyclists reduces
the likelihood of a motorcycle crash fatality by 37 percent for
operators and 41 percent for passengers. To address these crash
fatality numbers, the addition of eligibility criteria to emphasize the
use of motorcycle helmets would be an effective and positive step in
protecting public health and safety, while recognizing the rights of
states to make choices for their citizens. I appreciate the Committee's
inclusion of a provision that would clarify the agency's authority to
take action with regard to all-noncompliant or defective motorcycle
helmets.
Distracted Driving Provisions
As you know, Secretary LaHood and I have been outspoken about the
dangers of distracted driving. We support a robust program to reduce
distracted driving as presented in the Committee draft.
Today less than 15 states have a primary enforcement law that bans
drivers under the age of 18 from driving while using a cell phone.
Given the complexity surrounding the eligibility criteria to receive a
grant, I suggest that the Committee consider providing NHTSA with the
authority to make this determination through notice and comment
rulemaking.
Improved Authority
I want to thank the Committee for including several helpful
provisions that expand the agency's capabilities. These include:
Authority to ensure that notification of non-compliant or
defective conditions in used passenger vehicles and in rental
vehicles is provided to consumers;
Increased authority to address safety hazards caused by some
imported motor vehicle equipment;
Increases in the total amount of civil penalties NHTSA can
seek for a related series of violations; and
Support for collaborative research in developing and
deploying in-vehicle alcohol detection systems.
I would like to call particular attention to section 411 on used
passenger motor vehicle consumer protection and section 412 on safety
of recalled rental motor vehicles. These two provisions would protect
consumers in a significant segment of the motor vehicle population that
we currently cannot reach effectively. Our statutory authority does not
permit NHTSA to require action by used car dealers or rental companies
with regard to recalled vehicles. We do not have any authority to
protect consumers at the rental counter or those looking to purchase a
used vehicle. These two simple provisions are critical to ensure that
consumers are notified of recall issues before they purchase a used
vehicle or rent a car.
Together these enhanced authorities would permit NHTSA to ensure
motor vehicle and equipment safety on a broader basis than we can
today.
However, the technical drafting assistance we provided to the
Committee in May included agency policy proposals on several measures
that are not in the Committee draft, including:
Authority over portable electronic devices in vehicles to
address the clear and serious distraction hazard they pose;
Authority over devices external to vehicles that will be
essential to ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of
vehicle-to-vehicle communications in order to realize the
enormous safety benefits these systems may bring; and
Direct appellate review of recall orders to ensure that
manufacturers have the opportunity to challenge orders while
avoiding lengthy district court trials during which no recall
is in effect to protect consumers.
Without the additional authority such provisions would provide,
NHTSA would be hard pressed to adequately address some very serious
safety issues. For example, vehicle-to-vehicle communications hold the
promise of significant safety advances by enabling inter-vehicle
communications to reduce the likelihood of many types of crashes. Such
communications systems are likely to depend on electronic devices
external to the vehicles working in concert with in-vehicle devices.
NHTSA's issuance of standards concerning those external devices would
be very helpful to ensure the reliability and security of those
communications. A clarification of the agency's authority to do so is
an important element in furthering the development of those systems.
Rulemaking
The draft bill contains a large number of rulemaking provisions,
some with relatively short times allowed for completion. However, I
appreciate the inclusion of a provision that would permit the agency,
when necessary, to lengthen those time frames and explain to the
committees of jurisdiction why it must do so. This will permit the
agency to continue to prioritize its regulatory work based on its
judgment of the likely safety benefits and its available resources.
While the agency is currently working on some of the safety
challenges identified in the Committee draft, some provisions include
subjects not currently on our agenda. We develop our research and
rulemaking priorities by focusing on the most significant safety risks,
particularly vulnerable populations and high occupancy vehicle issues.
The agency looks forward to working with this Committee and the
Congress to share our thinking on rulemaking priorities, and developing
a consensus rulemaking agenda that will address risks to the driving
public.
Post-Employment Restrictions
One provision of the draft would impose stricter post-employment
restrictions on NHTSA employees. We believe that a provision singling
out NHTSA employees for stricter treatment is not the most effective
means to achieve the intended goals of the provision, and could cause
other unintended consequences that may affect the agency in
accomplishing its mission. At the request of this Committee, the DOT
Office of Inspector General conducted a full review of NHTSA's ethics
procedures and their adequacy to prevent undue influence being exerted
on NHTSA's safety defect investigations.
I would like to call attention to a letter to the Committee dated
April 4, 2011 from the Inspector General, which found that NHTSA had
adequate controls in place to ensure employees' compliance with ethics
requirements and found no evidence of undue influence during
investigations. The Inspector General made no recommendations for
changes in NHTSA's ethics policies, procedures, and practices.
The Obama Administration has set forth some of the most
comprehensive ethics rules of any administration. The Secretary holds
the staff of the entire Department to the highest ethical standard. The
agency looks forward to the opportunity to discuss effective and
federally consistent ethics process improvements.
I thank the Committee and its staff for paying such close attention
to the important highway safety issues NHTSA confronts and for the hard
work that went into preparing the Committee's thoughtful draft. I look
forward to continue working with the Committee to address some of the
issues discussed here today. Thank you for the opportunity to offer
these comments. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And we will have some questions.
Let me go ahead and ask the first one and that would be during
the last several years, the U.S. has seen a decline in traffic
fatalities. How can we keep that trend going in the right
direction in the future?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a number of
initiatives that I think have been very successful that we have
seen from the effects of the last reauthorization in 2005
SAFETEA-LU. In addition, there is some modifications that we
believe as lessons learned from our behavioral programs,
clearly getting belt usage up. We're currently 85 percent as a
Nation. The closer that we get to 100 percent belt compliance
is thousands of lives saved per year.
Clearly, reducing the number of impaired fatalities is key.
Thirty-two percent of those are still, unfortunately, alcohol-
related. And our work not only on the behavioral side
supporting law enforcement efforts, but also our outreach
campaigns, as we have done over the years along with the belt
campaigns, have proven to be very successful.
Also, as we mentioned, work on distraction, and our other
issues that are very important to us, whether it is speed
control, aggressive driving, red-light running, and a host of
other behavioral issues is important.
On the vehicle safety side, as you know, we are working
very hard to work through our priority rulemaking agenda--I can
talk about that in more detail--in addition to finalizing work
on some significant safety issues, such as the Rearward-
visibility rule, which we will finish this year, and others.
So, we think the comprehensive programs can be built upon, and
I think the Committee strived to give us the ability to do just
do that.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And I know that in Connecticut
and New York, there has been some demonstration projects on
distracted driving. Apparently, you know, sort of high
visibility, you know efforts to stop the distracted driving
there. Have those been a success and what have we learned
there, and what else can we do? What other research are you
doing to try to curtail distracted driving?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you highlighted
those two programs, which were astounding successes. Basically,
the reductions of both Hartford, Connecticut and in Syracuse,
New York showed that our model for seat belt safety and for
impaired driving worked, which is high-visibility advertising.
We ran an ad campaign in conjunction with those two
jurisdictions, phone in my one hand, ticket in another, along
with high- visibility enforcement. We had great cooperation
with the law--with the enforcement personnel in both of those
areas and along with good, strong State laws, which actually
had bans on hand-held cell phones, as well as texting bans. And
we saw reductions of between 30 and 70 percent in texting and
hand-held cell phone use in both of those jurisdictions.
From that demonstration project, the Secretary's hope is to
actually expand these programs to a statewide level in
particular jurisdictions, and then we will get more lessons
learned there, but we think that it's a rousing success.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask about nomadic vehicles, you know,
things like cell phones, even iPads, et cetera. Who should have
the authority on the regulation of those, FTC or NHTSA or both?
Mr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, not to--not to sort of
undercut my own efforts as administrator or the agency's
efforts here, someone needs to fill that safety donut. Right
now, NHTSA has a safety authority for vehicles, but not over
nomadic device that can be brought into the vehicle.
The Federal Communications Commission has authority over
the nomadic devices, but they don't have safety authority or,
specifically, how their products are used especially when
they're tethered to motor vehicles. So, our suggestion would be
in this particular scenario to provide authority for NHTSA to
develop performance standards regarding nomadic devices in
vehicles. The bottom line is people will bring iPhones or
Droids or anything else into the vehicle. They have
applications which are very alluring to people.
Some of them are useful for the motorcycle, for the motor
vehicle environment like GPS systems, but on a phone this big,
it is not very effective, and it is dangerous for a driver. For
telephonic communications and other things, the goal is to try
to tether those devices to the vehicle. And the only way that
the agency can effectively do that is to be able to perform and
have standards so that at least to force the driver to tether
the device to the vehicle or to disable it for the driver while
it is in motion. So, then, you could use an on-board system for
the vehicle. That's the only way that we can really be sure
that we have an on-board system that really truly is safe and
avoids distractions.
Senator Pryor. OK. Mr. Toomey?
Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Strickland, it is my understanding that
currently the agency has about $472 million in unobligated
funds on hand. And it is also my understanding that NHTSA
recommends that $151 million of that be rescinded, and that
that corresponds to an amount for which the states have not
expressed any interest in available grants, and so that's
appropriately being suggested for rescission.
I guess my first question is, do I have those numbers
right, approximately? And, second, does the agency plan to
spend the remaining $321 million that's unobligated at this
point by the end of this Fiscal Year, which is only 2 months
away?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Toomey, in terms of how the
unobligated funds are actually--are actually optically seen by
those reviewing the books and versus reality, that money, the
$472 million that you alluded to, is actual funds that are used
by the states to execute the programs that are so important and
key for citizen safety on the roads throughout the country
whether it is belt enforcement or alcohol-impaired driving
enforcement or data improvement. There is a range of other
issues. And because of eccentricities in the budgeting process
here in Washington, D.C., inefficiencies with other matters,
states sometimes have a little harder time executing, and
actually obligating, and spending those funds. So, while it
looks on the books, they are unobligated, those funds are
actually accounted for by all 50 states in terms of how they
use our programs.
Senator Toomey. Does that include the $151 million that's
been recommended for rescission?
Mr. Strickland. I was just getting back that that, Mr.
Chairman--I mean, Mr. Ranking Member, I apologize. The issue,
there is as part of the 406 Incentive Program for primary
belting, which is a large incentive for states to pass primary
belt laws. So, therefore, if a state is not close or hasn't
passed primarily belt law, you know, those funds can possibly
go unused. It is getting close to the end of the fiscal year,
which is the reason why the Department has suggested that some
of those funds can be rescinded. However, those funds can be
used in much more effective ways, which we have suggested in
our technical--our technical comments to reauthorization. But
that particular program is a very specific and special one that
came from SAFETEA-LU, and I would not say it is typical of the
typical programmatic work that NHTSA undertakes in terms of its
usual work.
Senator Toomey. OK. But getting back to the 321, though,
I'm not sure if I understand completely, but am I--would I be
correct to understand that these funds are committed? That they
are--that grants have been applied for? They've been approved?
The funds are earmarked? The money is going to these places?
They just haven't been released yet? Is that a fair
characterization?
Mr. Strickland. It's a combination of things, Ranking
Member. The issue really is that states, because of the
budgetary eccentricities, by the time that money is actually
released from the Federal Government through the Department to
the states, by the time the states have an opportunity to get
their programs up and running and then obligated, there is
often a lag time. We work very hard through our regional
offices to encourage the states to get these obligated funds
spent. And sometimes as part of the eccentricities of the
budgeting process--and I'm sure that Mr. Betkey at GHSA can
sort of talk about this issue as well--that when there is an
issue such as, you know, an extension, a lack of an extension
for the Highway Reauthorization bill, these funds are often
used as carry over by the states. It isn't intended to do so,
but states sometimes plan it that way and we encourage them not
to do that.
Senator Toomey. OK. But let me move on. It is still not
entirely clear to me what timeline is here.
Mr. Strickland. We are happy to get back to you for the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Question. NHTSA reported a current unobligated balance of
$472,066,720 of Fiscal Year 2011 funds. Please explain what these funds
are, and why this late in the fiscal year the Agency has this funding
as yet unobligated. Explain how you plan to obligate the funds before
the end of the fiscal year.
Answer. The unobligated balance of $472 million is as of June 30,
2011. Of the $472 million, $150 million has been identified to the
Congressional Appropriations Staff as being available for rescission,
leaving a balance of $322 million. Approximately $196 million (61
percent) is the NHTSA formula grant program funding for Sections 408,
410, 2010, and 2011 safety grant programs. By regulation, applications
for these programs from the State Offices of Highway Safety are due
late in the fiscal year--starting June 15 and up to August 1.
Consequently, these funds are reported as unobligated until late in the
fiscal year. We affirm that, as in past years, NHTSA personnel are on
schedule to award the entire amount of available funding by the end of
Fiscal Year 2011.
The remaining $126,000,000 (39 percent) are programmatic and
administrative dollars. As has been the case in previous years, we
fully expect to obligate the majority of these funds by the end of this
fiscal year, with the exception of the 2-year funding ($30 million).
These funds are broken down as follows:
Approximately $30 million are for salary, benefits, and
general administrative support (such as rent and IT) for the
remainder of the fiscal year.
Approximately $20 million is 2-year vehicle research and
analysis money; these funds will be obligated by the end of
Fiscal Year 2012 on ongoing vehicle research projects,
including such items as biomechanics and crash avoidance.
Approximately $10 million is 2-year behavioral research
money, which will be obligated for data collection and
analysis.
The remaining $66 million funds other ongoing program
activities, particularly contracts that we plan to obligate by
the end of the current fiscal year.
Senator Toomey. I would like to understand this better.
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Toomey. A separate question, if I could. Last year,
you told the Committee that the information that you get from
manufacturers through the early warning reporting process is
helpful in identifying potential defects, and so I assume that
is still your position that that is helpful information?
Mr. Strickland. Yes, Ranking Member, it is.
Senator Toomey. Now, at the time and subsequently in your
report, the priority plan that you published in March, there
was no suggestion by yourself, that I am aware of, that this
information be made public. And, you know, one of the concerns
that is expressed is that some of this could include unverified
information, for instance. Some of it could create
inappropriate liabilities. Are you at all concerned that this
could hamper the flow of information that you have identified
as helpful information?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Toomey, the one thing that the
Department as a whole, NHTSA, the Obama administration
encourages is, is transparency, and we want to provide the most
information that we can to the public. I think it serves,
frankly, the Nation's best interest. However, the agency has
acted in terms of rulemaking, in terms of protecting the
proprietary and confidential business information. If there is
anything that affects that information coming to the agency, it
does impact our operations. Can that process be improved? Could
there be a better screen and more transparency? There is always
that opportunity. We are happy to discuss that. But, you know,
to underscore, we do believe that anything that discourages the
manufacturers from providing information to the agency that
they consider proprietary or confidential would hamper our
operations in terms of making safety evaluations.
Senator Toomey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Senator Udall?
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Pryor, Chairman Pryor,
and thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Strickland, I know that you and Secretary LaHood have
previously stated support for the Research and Development
Program which my legislation, the ROADS SAFE Act, would
authorize and sustain. Could you explain to the Committee how
NHTSA is working with leading automakers to develop new in-
vehicle technologies to prevent and potentially eliminate drunk
driving?
Mr. Strickland. Mr. Udall, you have highlighted the driver
alcohol detection systems for safety work that we have been
working on for the past 3 years with the manufacturers. This
year is actually the fifth year anniversary of Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers campaign to eliminate drunk driving. And this is
one of the hallmarks of this work, which is to create an auto
grade seamless unintrusive and variably accurate system for a
vehicle to see if a person is driving over the legal limit,
which is 0.08. And if the car detects that, to interlock the
vehicle from actually being driven. We are in the third year of
our work in Phase 2 of the research and from--frankly, when I
was still working for Mr. Pryor, working on this Committee, I
frankly as a staffer did not think that it was a possibility to
have an in-vehicle technology which could be seamless to
prevent a car from being driven by an impaired driver.
The work that we have seen so far has shown that it is
entirely possible. We have a long way to go. We have two more
years' worth of work and more resources to expend, along with
the manufacturers, but this really is our moon shot. It is an
opportunity to make sure that no car with this type of
technology can ever be driven by an impaired driver. We think
there is huge promise in that, which is the reason why the
Secretary and I have supported your legislation.
Senator Udall. Well, I think that it is very promising what
you say. And as we know, every new development and every step
we make forward, we save lives, so that is----
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall.--tremendously important.
I want to talk to you a little bit about these event data
recorders. We have had a number of hearings. I think you were
here also in the past when we looked at this whole issue of
data recorders.
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. There is no doubt they provide critical
information in the event of a crash. This information can serve
to determine whether a vehicle malfunction was to blame. The
last Congress, I introduced legislation to require event data
recorders in all vehicles, and I am glad to see that they will
be required for all light-duty vehicles in the proposed
legislation. Is there value in requiring event data recorders
in medium and heavy-duty vehicles and what steps need to be
taken before EDRs can be effectively deployed in medium and in
heavy-duty vehicles?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Udall, you highlighted the fact
that event data recorders or EDRs are essential pieces of
equipment for the agency to do analytical work on what happened
in the case of a crash, which means rather than caused by a
vehicle defect that poses an unreasonable risk. We are still in
the research phases in terms of the effectiveness and the
variables that may be involved in event data recorders on
medium duty and heavy-duty vehicles. I definitely would like to
have my staff get back to you specifically on the record in
terms of where we are in that process and the things that we're
looking that. But because EDR showed such promise in the light-
duty fleet, I think anecdotally there should be promise in the
medium duty and heavy-duty fleet, but, clearly, there is more
complexities, different physics issues that are involved,
different technology issues that are involved which may take
some work and some time, but we are happy to engage in a
conversation with you and the rest of this Committee on that
issue.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you. And I look forward to your
responses there.
The proposed bill includes a provision that would require
the Secretary to establish a grant program for states that
enact mandatory ignition interlock laws for all drunk-driving
offenders.
Mr. Strickland. Uh-huh.
Senator Udall. In New Mexico, we found that ignition
interlocks have been key to reducing drunk driving on our
roads. Can you explain why interlocks as opposed to license
suspension are the key to addressing these drunk-driving
issues?
Mr. Strickland. Mr. Udall, license suspension does not
prevent a driver from getting behind the wheel impaired. People
will often, throughout the fact that they are driving without a
license, continue to drive anyway. And also recognizes the
realities that people after they've been convicted of impaired
driving still have, you know, lives to lead, school to go to,
jobs to go to. And the first--then a first-offense interlock
allows those people that have been convicted to then continue
on with those activities safely. So, that is the reason why
that we put so much emphasis on the grant program to encourage
more states to undertake interlocks because the margin of
safety is immeasurable. Just as a work in DADSS' long term, we
know ignition interlocks work and we, hopefully, can encourage
the Committee to maintain this provision going forward.
Senator Udall. Well, we know they are very effective in New
Mexico and I look forward to answering questions, and hope you
answer questions from other states to see that they
proliferate.
Thank you, and sorry for going over a little bit, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Senator Blunt?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record, and we
will just put that in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roy Blunt, U.S. Senator from Missouri
Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Toomey, I appreciate you holding
this important hearing this afternoon and for allowing me to make a few
brief comments and observations.
For more than 40 years, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has been charged with one very important task, and that
is to help make our Nation's highways safer. This is a very important
endeavor nationally, and as someone who represents a state with huge
tracts of interstate highways and various other Federal highways it is
equally important to me.
In 2009, the most recent year for which the Missouri Department of
Transportation has records, 577 fatal accidents occurred on Missouri's
highways, resulting in over 650 deaths. I'm mindful that there were
over 75,000 crashes on our highways that year as well, so I recognize
that the cars on the road, and the roads themselves, are much safer,
and NHTSA has played a role in facilitating better safety measures. But
there is much more that can be done.
I look forward to hearing today about some on-going issues that
NHTSA is addressing, notably recall issues and revamping the state
grant awarding process to better reflect performance and a streamlined
application process. I think these are notable goals, and at a time
when the Federal Government is reprioritizing spending, it goes without
saying that our grant award processes should reduce redundancies and
reward those that make their dollars go the farthest.
We are all here today are looking for the best ways to make our
highways safer and to streamline pertinent information about recalls
and defects to NHTSA, manufacturers, retailers and consumers.
Everyone from the drivers on the road to the manufacturers
assembling our cars are best served when processes are in place to
quickly repair cars that need fixing and to remove the ones that cannot
from the road.
We have come a long way in terms of automobile safety in the past
30 years in reducing the number of accidents on our Nation's highways
and the number of fatalities and injuries that result. There is much
left to be done and, again, I look forward hearing today how we can
work together to limit these types of tragedies further.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Strickland, thank you for being here.
Let me ask a question, a follow-up question on the EDRs. I
think this legislation expands the parameter of how long the
EDR would report.
Mr. Strickland. Uh-huh.
Senator Blunt. Can you talk to me about--I think right now
I just captured a little time before, during and after the
accident. I wonder why that is not enough?
Mr. Strickland. Well, right now, Mr. Blunt, we are actually
undergoing a plan for rulemaking for changing certain
parameters on event data recorders which we think will be of
assistance to the agency. However, there has been no final
decisions internally because we are researching what is the
right time segment for us to collect information that would be
helpful in crash reconstruction and investigations.
While the Committee's draft does have a specific time
period, I know that the technical staff at NHTSA is still
considering that issue. We'll be happy to come back and discuss
with you those particular parameters and where we are and what
will be the----
Senator Blunt. That will be great. Do you know what the
correct time period is for EDR?
Mr. Strickland. Actually, sir, I do not. I am not sure.
It's 5 seconds, Mr. Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Five seconds.
Mr. Strickland. Five seconds. Five seconds.
Senator Blunt. Well, I would like to talk a little more
about that as the staff is ready to do that. And on the issue
of recall, what are the annual recall completion rates now?
Mr. Strickland. It is about 70 percent for full vehicles,
sir, but it is less than that for motor vehicle equipment. It
is something that we are working very hard to improve
generally. I know that this is an issue that faces, frankly,
every consumer protection agency that deals with products
whether it is our agency or the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, but we hope to work very hard and make some changes
in the recall process to increase those completion rates, but
it is about 70 percent for cars.
Senator Blunt. Would it be your opinion that the fleet
recall completion rate is higher than the overall rate like a
rental company or another fleet rate? Would they more likely
pursue the recall or less likely?
Mr. Strickland. Well, comparatively speaking, I don't have
those numbers, Mr. Blunt. We will get back to you. I will tell
you----
Senator Blunt. Well, somebody on your team may know back
there.
Mr. Strickland.--and, once again, I think--you know, we
have stumped our senior associate administrator for vehicle
safety on that one. I do not think we have done a complete
comparison between fleet rates for rental cars versus the
overall population, but I will say, Mr. Blunt, the concern that
we have is the timeliness and the completion of rental car
companies undertaking recall repairs. We have undertaken an
audit query and we've engaged very actively with the rental car
companies to improve that asset, because they are putting these
cars in the stream of commerce and putting consumers at risk if
these cars are not repaired.
Senator Blunt. But you are trying to determine whether
there really is a systemic problem or not with the--like the
rental company?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Blunt, to be honest, we have
established it, and there is a systemic problem. That is the
reason why.
Senator Blunt. And the problem is they do not pursue the
recall information or they do not tell people that this vehicle
is under recall and hasn't been fixed yet?
Mr. Strickland. Both, sir. They haven't--they do not fix
them timely and they don't tell consumers.
Senator Blunt. And that is--you have a report that verifies
that?
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir, we do. Happy to--we will provide
it to you post-hearing.
Senator Blunt. I would like to see it.
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
Senator Blunt. Chairman, I think that is all. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And just to follow up on that
last question, Senator Blunt. The bill that we are proposing or
shopping around does not have a specific time period. It is
just shall require data recorders to capture and store data
related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time
period before, during, and after motor vehicle crash or airbag
deployment.
Senator Blunt. So, Mr. Chairman, do we think that might be
5 seconds for that?
Senator Pryor. Well, that is what--we are leaving that open
right now and we need to talk about that. I just want to let
you know just for clarification.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And, Mr. Strickland, thank you so much for being before the
Committee today, our Subcommittee today. We really appreciate
your efforts there. I know that I have some questions I want to
submit for the record, and I think a few of my colleagues do as
well, so we're going to leave the record open for 2 weeks. We
are going to leave the record open for 2 weeks. Is that right?
Do you want to go less? We may try to leave the record open
just for a week because we may actually try to mark----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Chairman, when I served you, sir,
I gave you 2 weeks, but I know what your current staff is
doing.
Senator Pryor. I know; I will tell you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. But anyway, whatever, we will talk to you--
--
Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor.--and then figure out what that is exactly,
but we'd appreciate those rapid responses, as always. Thank you
very much for your time and your service.
Mr. Strickland. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do
appreciate it, Mr. Toomey and Mr. Blunt, thank you for the
time.
Senator Pryor. Right. Well, what we will do now is, as Mr.
Strickland excuses himself, we will move on to the next panel.
And as we are getting this panel set up, we are going to try to
do a quick change there and I will go ahead and introduce the
panel, the five panelists here.
We have Ms. Susan Fleming. She is the Director of Physical
Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
We have Ms. Jacqueline Gillan, Vice President, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety.
We have the Honorable Nicole Nason, which is former
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.
Mr. Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Vehicle Safety and
Harmonization, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
And Mr. Vernon Betkey, he is the Chairman, Governors
Highway Safety Association.
So, as soon as we get set up, I will recognize Ms. Fleming
for her opening statements and we are going to respectfully ask
you all to keep your statements to 5 minutes, if at all
possible.
We are expecting a roll call vote sometime within the hour,
so I'm going to try to move this along, if possible.
Ms. Fleming, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN FLEMING, DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Fleming. Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Toomey, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss NHTSA's traffic and vehicle safety programs.
During the last several years, U.S. traffic fatalities have
declined substantially from about 43,500 in 2005 to
approximately 33,000 in 2010, yet far too many people are still
killed or injured on our Nation's roadways every year.
In addition, auto manufacturers recalled a record 14.9
million vehicles in 2010 to address a range of safety issues
such as malfunctioning airbags and faulty steering columns.
On average, about 70 percent of vehicles subject to a
recall are fixed while the remainder may continue to pose risks
to vehicle owners, passengers, and pedestrians.
My testimony today has three parts. I will discuss NHTSA's
progress in improving oversight and performance management for
traffic safety grant programs, NHTSA's oversight of the auto
safety defect process, and issues for Congress to consider in
reauthorizing funding for traffic and vehicle safety problems.
First, NHTSA has taken several steps to better oversee
State's management of safety grants and move toward a more
performance-based framework. As we recommended in 2003, NHTSA
has implemented a more consistent oversight process and now
conducts a management review of each State at least once every
3 years.
In addition, NHTSA developed a tool called the corrective
action plan to track States' implementation of management
review recommendations and encouraged states to act on the
agency's guidance.
To improve performance measurement for traffic safety
programs, NHTSA partnered with GHSA to develop and publish two
sets of performance measures to help states implement and
improve traffic safety programs and data systems. These
measures are an important step toward a more performance-based
data-driven grant structure and respond wholly or in part to
GAO recommendations to improve State accountability for grant
funds.
Moving on to my second point, NHTSA's auto safety recall
process. Our work identified a number of challenges that affect
recall completion rates including notifying vehicle owners of
auto safety defects, motivating vehicle owners to comply with
notification letters and providing clear information to vehicle
owners and the public.
Additionally, NHTSA lacks authority to notify potential
used car buyers about outstanding recalls.
Our work also identified several options or changes that
could address some of these challenges and improve safety for
the motoring public. For example, NHTSA could modify the
requirements for manufacturers to present information and
safety defect notification letters and publicize information
resources like the agency's website so that vehicle owners are
better motivated and informed.
NHTSA may also be able to use manufacturers' data to
identify what factors make recalls more or less successful than
others. Most of these options are within the scope of NHTSA's
current authorities and would require minimal investment of
staff and other resources.
As Administrator Strickland noted, NHTSA is currently
exploring a few of these options.
Finally, reauthorization provides opportunities to further
improve NHTSA's traffic and vehicle safety programs. For
example, Congress could link traffic safety grant awards to
performance to make states more accountable for their use of
grant funds.
In addition, Congress could reduce administrative
challenges for states by streamlining the application process
for incentive grants and allowing more flexibility in the use
of grant funds.
Reauthorization also creates an opportunity for Congress to
modify NHTSA's recall authority in ways that would make
consumers more aware of recalls and better protect consumers
from unknowingly purchasing defective vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the
Subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Toomey, and members of the
Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to
discuss the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
traffic and vehicle safety programs. NHTSA's traffic safety grant
programs are a key part of Federal efforts to reduce traffic
fatalities. During the last several years, the United States has seen a
remarkable decline in traffic fatalities, from 43,510 in 2005 to an
estimated 32,788 in 2010. Fatality rates have also dropped over that
time, from 1.46 to 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, the lowest rate since 1949. Despite this encouraging trend,
far too many people are still killed or injured on our Nation's
roadways every day. In addition, although traffic fatalities have
decreased, in 2010 auto manufacturers recalled a record 14.9 million
vehicles to address a range of safety issues such as malfunctioning air
bags and faulty steering columns. On average, about 70 percent of
vehicles subject to a recall are fixed within the 18-month period
during which manufacturers provide recall completion data to NHTSA,
while the remainder may continue to pose risks to vehicle owners,
passengers, and pedestrians. Congress has also expressed concerns about
whether NHTSA has the authority it needs and whether vehicle owners are
being effectively motivated to remedy their vehicles. The upcoming
reauthorization of Department of Transportation (DOT) programs offers
the opportunity to revise Federal programs to better assist states in
addressing traffic safety issues and to enhance NHTSA's recall
authority.
My testimony today addresses: (1) NHTSA's progress in improving
oversight and performance measurement for traffic safety grant
programs, (2) NHTSA's oversight of the auto safety defect process, and
(3) issues for Congress to consider in reauthorizing funding for
traffic and vehicle safety programs. My statement is based primarily on
reports we issued since the enactment of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) \1\ on issues related to traffic safety--including NHTSA's
oversight of state traffic safety programs, traffic safety grants,
high-visibility enforcement, older driver safety, and teen driver
safety--and NHTSA's auto recall process. (See the list of related GAO
products at the end of this statement.) For the reviews related to
traffic safety, we analyzed traffic fatality data from NHTSA and
selected states; examined NHTSA's evaluations (triennial management
reviews) of state processes and procedures, including corrective action
plans; visited selected states; analyzed the quality of state traffic
data systems; and reviewed relevant documents, including legislation,
regulations, guidance, and state plans and reports. We also interviewed
NHTSA officials, state traffic safety officials, and other traffic
safety stakeholders, including representatives from local law
enforcement agencies and safety organizations such as the state's AAA
club or Safety Council association. For the review of NHTSA's auto
recall process, we interviewed NHTSA officials, auto manufacturers, and
other auto industry stakeholders about NHTSA's role in the recall
process and the benefits and challenges of the recall process for NHTSA
and manufacturers. In addition, we compared NHTSA's authority to the
authorities of other selected Federal and foreign agencies that oversee
vehicle recalls, and conducted focus groups with vehicle owners to
better understand their awareness of recalls and willingness to comply
with recall notices. We conducted these audits from July 2002 through
June 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. More detailed information on the scope and methodology of
our previous work can be found with each issued report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
During the past decade, the number of motor vehicle fatalities has
substantially decreased, from 43,510 in 2005 to an estimated 32,788 in
2010. Fatality rates have also dropped over that time, from 1.46 to an
estimated 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (see
fig. 1).
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Most traffic fatalities are related to human behavior, including
speeding, alcohol impaired driving, and improper or no use of safety
belts or child safety or booster seats. As the use of electronic
devices has grown, distracted driving has also increasingly been
identified as a cause. Certain populations, including motorcyclists and
both elderly and teen drivers, are more likely to be involved in
serious accidents. Data on these and other traffic safety areas are
critical for NHTSA and states to identify and address key traffic
safety issues and trends.
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized $2.4 billion for Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2009 for programs to provide safety grants to assist
states in their efforts to address these issues and reduce traffic
fatalities.\2\ The largest portion of funds provided by SAFETEA-LU, or
about $1 billion, was allocated for the continuation of State and
Community Highway Safety grants to states for a variety of traffic
safety issues, including law enforcement activities, improvements to
training programs, or media campaigns, among others. These grants are
allocated to states through a formula that considers a state's road
mileage and population. SAFETEA-LU also modified or added five safety
incentive grant programs to enhance safety belt use, child safety and
child booster seat use, alcohol impaired driving countermeasures,
motorcyclist safety, and state traffic safety information systems.
These incentive grants are awarded to states that meet certain criteria
for each grant, such as enacting safety belt laws and child restraint
laws, achieving alcohol-related fatality benchmarks, or implementing
training programs, among others. In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorized
funding for high-visibility enforcement campaigns that combine
intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law--such as a
safety belt use law or an impaired driving law--with extensive media
communication to educate and persuade the public of the law's safety
benefits. NHTSA and states use SAFETEA-LU grants--including State and
Community Highway formula grants, safety belt grants, and alcohol
impaired driving countermeasures grants--to support high-visibility
enforcement campaign activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Additional spending has been authorized since 2009. The most
recent extension expires September 30, 2011. Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 111-242, 124 Stat. 2607 (2010) as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is responsible for implementing programs designed to address
two of the three types of factors that contribute to crashes--human
behavior and vehicle factors.\3\ To address behavioral factors, NHTSA
oversees state traffic safety grant programs by reviewing states'
management of these grants and assessing states' progress in improving
safety outcomes. For example, NHTSA monitors states' spending and
conducts triennial management reviews designed to ensure that states
manage grants effectively, efficiently, and in compliance with laws and
regulations. NHTSA also assesses a state's performance against state-
established safety goals and national safety outcomes by examining
state highway safety plans and annual reports. NHTSA conducts special
management reviews of states with consistently high alcohol-related
fatality rates or low safety belt use rates and less than half of the
national average improvement in these areas over time. A special
management review is an in-depth evaluation of a state's impaired
driving or safety belt use program that NHTSA uses to recommend program
improvements. In addition, at states' request, NHTSA coordinates
voluntary technical program assessments conducted by leading
independent experts who review state programs in one of seven traffic
safety areas and recommend program improvements. In 2003, we reported
that NHTSA used management reviews and resulting improvement plans
inconsistently across its 10 regional offices.\4\ This inconsistency
made it difficult to ensure that states used Federal funds in
accordance with requirements and that they addressed program
weaknesses. As a result, we recommended that NHTSA provide more
specific guidance to its regional offices on when to conduct management
reviews and use improvement plans, and how to measure state progress
toward meeting safety goals. In response, NHTSA developed new policies
for its regional offices on when it is appropriate to use management
reviews and improvement plans to assist highway safety programs. The
new procedures direct NHTSA to conduct management reviews in each state
at least once every 3 years. In addition, they direct NHTSA to work
collaboratively with states in developing performance enhancement plans
(formerly known as improvement plans) when a state fails to meet
performance goals, shows substandard performance, or fails to show
improvement toward a priority safety goal over a 3-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for
addressing the third type of factor that contributes to crashes--
roadway environment.
\4\ GAO, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of
State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its mission, NHTSA is also responsible for the oversight
of manufacturers' compliance with safety standards and the
identification and remedy of vehicle and equipment defects that could
pose an unreasonable risk to safety. NHTSA oversees compliance recalls
(for instances of noncompliance, such as improper placement of warning
labels for airbags), and safety defect recalls (for the potential of a
vehicle component to fail and endanger safety--for example, a steering
column could break and suddenly cause partial or complete loss of
vehicle control), which represent the majority of recalls overseen by
the agency. The auto safety defect recall process for motor vehicles is
a concerted effort involving a number of stakeholders, including NHTSA,
auto manufacturers, franchised dealerships, and vehicle owners.\5\ Auto
manufacturers are primarily responsible for conducting auto safety
defect recalls, while NHTSA oversees the recall process, in part by
reviewing the actions manufacturers plan to take to remedy vehicles and
monitoring the effectiveness of recall campaigns based on several
considerations, including a campaign's completion rate (the number of
defective vehicles that are repaired). NHTSA also provides guidance and
information to the public on safety defect recalls, chiefly through its
website, www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Franchised dealerships are businesses that have franchise
agreements with an auto manufacturer to sell or lease new vehicles it
manufactures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Has Imporved Oversight and Performance Measures for Traffic
Safety Grants
NHTSA has taken several steps to better oversee states' management
of federally funded safety grants and move toward a more performance-
based, data-driven grant structure.
Oversight
As we recommended in 2003,\6\ NHTSA improved the consistency of its
traffic safety grant oversight process, including implementing the
requirement added by SAFETEA-LU that NHTSA conduct a management review
of each state at least once every 3 years.\7\ In addition, NHTSA
developed a tool--the corrective action plan--to track states'
implementation of management review recommendations and encourage
states to act on the agency's guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO-03-474.
\7\-23 U.S.C. 412(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, we reported that NHTSA's initiatives to improve the
consistency of its management reviews also had the potential to improve
the information available to it for analysis--such as information on
common grant management challenges faced by states--and thus could
provide an opportunity for NHTSA to further enhance its oversight.\8\
However, NHTSA did not have a process for analyzing its management
review recommendations on a national level, identifying common
challenges faced by states, and directing training and technical
assistance resources accordingly. Furthermore, NHTSA was not tracking
at a national level the extent to which states had implemented its
recommendations--information that we noted could help NHTSA assess the
impact of its oversight. We recommended these steps, and, in 2009,
NHTSA implemented an electronic tracking system that documents the
recommendations NHTSA has made to states during its reviews. NHTSA also
analyzed these recommendations and, in collaboration with the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA)--an association of state highway
safety offices that implement programs to address behavioral highway
safety issues--offered training to states on common challenges. Such
training addressed planning and administration, equipment and indirect
costs, and performance measures. NHTSA also used information on states'
implementation of management review recommendations to develop webinars
in conjunction with GHSA to help states address common issues that
prevent them from implementing NHTSA's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, Traffic Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify
Opportunities to Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States, GAO-
08-788 (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Measurement
In collaboration with GHSA, NHTSA has developed a minimum set of
performance measures to assist states in developing and implementing
traffic safety grant programs. Such performance measures are a key
component in tracking states' progress toward safety goals and to
provide information on what areas should be prioritized for
improvement. In the past, we have called for a fundamental
reexamination of the Nation's surface transportation programs,
including the institution of processes to make grantees more
accountable by establishing more performance-based links between
funding and program outcomes.\9\ More specifically, in 2008, we
recommended that NHTSA establish a minimum set of performance measures
for states to consistently report high-visibility enforcement
activities funded with Federal dollars.\10\ While states are required
to include performance goals and measures for high-priority program
areas in their annual highway safety plans,\11\ states have not used
such measures consistently in these plans. For example, GHSA reported
that the number of measures used by states ranged from 4 to 115. In
2008, NHTSA published a minimum set of 14 performance measures that
cover key traffic safety program areas, such as overall fatalities and
injuries, fatality and injury rates, seat belt use, impaired driving,
speeding, motorcyclist safety, and teen driver safety. States were also
encouraged to use additional measures for other priority areas as
appropriate. The minimum set of measures includes measures that should
fulfill our recommendation related to high-visibility enforcement
activities: number of citations issued for failure to use seat belts
and for speeding and number of arrests made for impaired driving during
grant-funded enforcement activities. According to NHTSA officials, all
states have used the minimum set of performance measures in developing
their highway safety plans for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach
Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
GAO-08-400 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2008).
\10\ GAO, Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance
Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns, GAO-08-
477 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008).
\11\ 23 CFR 1200.10(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA and GHSA also developed a set of model performance measures
to help states monitor and improve the quality of the data in their six
core traffic record systems: crash, vehicle, driver, roadway, citation/
adjudication, and emergency medical system/injury surveillance. States
use these systems to collect and analyze data to help identify
priorities for traffic safety programs. Improvements to these systems
are funded, in part, by NHTSA's state Traffic Safety Information
Systems Improvement grant. Last year, we reported that states were
making progress in improving the quality of the six core systems, but
that system quality--as measured by the performance attributes of
timeliness, accuracy, completeness, consistency, integration, and
accessibility--varied considerably by system and attribute.\12\ For
example, across all data systems, we found that states met NHTSA's
performance criteria for the attribute of consistency 72 percent of the
time but met the criteria for the attribute of integration 13 percent
of the time. We recommended that NHTSA take steps to ensure that
traffic records assessments--which help states identify and prioritize
improvements to traffic safety data systems--provide an in-depth
evaluation that is complete and consistent in addressing all
performance attributes across all state traffic safety data
systems.\13\ In 2011, NHTSA published a model set of 61 performance
measures that address the six performance attributes for the six core
data systems. For example, the model includes two performance measures
recommended for assessing the timeliness of a state's crash database--
the mean number of days taken to enter crash data into the database and
the percentage of crash reports entered into the database within a
certain number of days after the crash. According to NHTSA, states' use
of these measures is voluntary, and states are encouraged to develop
additional measures if needed. Establishing these measures was a step
in NHTSA's overall plan for addressing our recommendation to ensure
that traffic records assessments are complete and consistent.\14\ These
measures are now available to help Federal, state, and local officials
monitor the quality of the data in state traffic records systems. The
measures are currently being used to evaluate applications for Traffic
Safety Information Systems Improvement grants and will also be
incorporated into the associated assessments of data systems starting
in Fiscal Year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ GAO, Traffic Safety Data: State Data System Quality Varies and
Limited Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress, GAO-
10-454 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2010).
\13\ NHTSA technical teams or contractors conduct these assessments
for states at least once every 5 years.
\14\ In addition to establishing the performance measures, NHTSA
recently finished a study that examined completed traffic records
assessments and identified State concerns with the assessments and
deficiencies in the technical aspects of the states traffic records
assessment process. NHTSA has begun to update the Traffic Records
Assessment procedures to incorporate recommendations from the study of
assessments and address all performance measures across all State
traffic safety data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Has Options to Improve the Safety Defect Recall Process
As we previously reported, a number of challenges affect recall
completion rates, including identifying and motivating affected vehicle
owners and providing better information to the public about
recalls.\15\ Through our interviews with industry stakeholders, focus
group participants, and NHTSA officials, we also identified several
changes that NHTSA could implement to address these challenges, most of
which would require limited resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO, Auto Safety: NHTSA Has Options to Improve the Safety
Defect Recall Process, GAO-11-603 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifying Safety Defect Notification Letters
Focus group participants we interviewed reported that the safety
defect notification letters they reviewed did not always convey a clear
description of the defect or the severity of the defect. Such confusion
could affect owners' willingness to take their vehicles in for service
and, ultimately, reduce the completion rates for certain recall
campaigns. Though some information is already required by law and
regulations, NHTSA has the ability to add requirements.\16\ In
particular, focus group participants indicated that they might be more
likely to respond to a notification letter that specifically indicated
the defect affecting their vehicle and conveyed the urgency of the
safety recall. NHTSA officials told us that although they are working
toward increasing recall completion rates, they believe that adding
content to the notification letters could be distracting and that the
fundamental information needed to convey the defect, the actions the
owner should take, and the remedy program is covered by the current
requirements. As we previously reported, while we agree that adding
lengthy and complex information to the notification letters is
unnecessary, our focus groups have shown that describing the defect
more clearly and adding content such as the owner's vehicle
identification number (VIN) may encourage vehicle owners to comply with
defect notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NHTSA requires defect notification letters to have: (1) a
notation on the envelope that include the words ``SAFETY,'' ``RECALL,''
and ``NOTICE'' in all capital letters and in a font different from the
address information; (2) a clear description of the defect; (3) an
evaluation of the risk to vehicle safety related to the defect; and (4)
a statement of measures to be taken to remedy the defect. 49 C.F.R.
577.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicizing Existing Resources and Making VINs Available to Vehicle
Owners and the Public
Our focus groups with vehicle owners also indicated that the public
may not be aware of NHTSA's website, the primary method NHTSA uses to
communicate information on recalls to consumers. In addition, a few
industry associations told us that it would be useful to provide
vehicle owners with the ability to search more easily for recall
information using their VINs. As such, NHTSA has an opportunity to make
vehicle owners and the public more aware of its website and to include
more useful information. To do so, NHTSA could develop public service
announcements and additional press releases or collaborate with auto
manufacturers to develop methods of informing vehicle owners about
available resources. NHTSA officials we spoke with agreed that
additional efforts could be made to improve the public's awareness of
www.safercar.gov and told us that the agency is currently redesigning
its website to consolidate information so that consumers can more
easily find information on vehicle 5-Star Safety Ratings and auto
safety recall information.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA's 5-Star Safety Ratings measure the crashworthiness and
rollover safety of vehicles. Five stars indicate the highest rating,
one star indicates the lowest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, NHTSA officials told us they are interested in finding
additional ways to improve vehicle owners' access to specific
information about recalls, and to that end, they are in the process of
purchasing software to facilitate a VIN-based search engine on NHTSA's
website. However, the officials noted that developing a centralized VIN
database would require significant additional resources to fully
implement. In addition, the officials told us that VIN searches can
present problems because vehicle owners may not enter VIN information
correctly into a web search. NHTSA officials are currently exploring
ways to address this issue.
Using Data More Effectively
Although NHTSA uses data it collects from manufacturers to track
the average annual recall completion rate for all vehicle recall
campaigns, NHTSA does not currently use its data to conduct aggregate
analyses of completion rates across factors such as the manufacturer,
component (such as steering), and vehicle type (such as car or pick-up
truck). NHTSA also does not analyze completion rates based on the
characteristics of defect notification letters, such as the format of
the letter mailed to vehicle owners. Conducting these types of trend
analyses could help NHTSA identify risk factors that might be
associated with lower recall completion rates. In June 2011, we
reported that our analysis of NHTSA's completion rate data for
passenger vehicle recalls from 2000 through 2008 has shown that
completion rates vary considerably across manufacturers and components
and, to some extent, vehicle types.\18\ Additionally, NHTSA officials
told us that other factors may also affect completion rates, including
the owner's perception of the severity of the defect and the age of a
vehicle at the time of the recall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See GAO-11-603 for additional information on our methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has the opportunity to analyze its data in ways that capture
the underlying complexities and variation in the risk factors
associated with lower completion rates. With that information, NHTSA
could target new recall campaigns that include such risk factors and
take additional steps to monitor those campaigns. NHTSA officials told
us they are interested in improving the completion rates of their
recalls. For example, NHTSA officials explained that they contacted a
child safety seat manufacturer that had experienced higher rates of
recall completion than other child safety seat manufacturers, in order
to learn how that manufacturer was achieving a relatively higher
completion rate. While this method--isolating outliers in the data,
then following up with a particular manufacturer to investigate--is not
a routine monitoring activity for NHTSA, it could use such an approach
more systematically when it notices differences in recall rates in
other areas identified in the data. NHTSA officials told us they were
currently re-evaluating how they used their data and would consider
ways that additional data analysis could help increase recall
completion rates.
Reauthorization Offers Opportunities to Improve Accountability and
State Administration of Traffic Safety Grants and Enhance
NHTSA's Recall Authority
In reauthorizing traffic safety grant programs, Congress has
opportunities to improve accountability by linking state performance
with traffic safety grant awards and to reduce administrative
challenges for states by streamlining the application process for
incentive grants and allowing more flexibility in the use of grant
funds. Additionally, in reauthorizing vehicle safety programs, Congress
has an opportunity to increase consumers' awareness of recalls and
protect consumers from unknowingly purchasing defective vehicles by
modifying NHTSA's vehicle recall authority to help ensure that
purchasers of used cars are aware of any defects that have not been
remedied following a recall.
Accountability Mechanisms for Traffic Safety Grants
The comprehensive set of traffic safety performance measures
published by NHTSA and GHSA in 2008 is an important step in moving
toward a more performance-based, data-driven grant structure. We have
reported that linking grant funding with states' progress in achieving
goals--as tracked through performance measures--could help improve
accountability for Federal funds. However, while states are required to
establish goals and related performance measures for high-priority
program areas in annual safety plans, states' receipt of State and
Community Highway traffic safety grant funds is not currently linked to
progress toward those goals. In addition, criteria for continuing to
receive traffic safety incentive grants are generally not tied to
states' demonstrating safety improvements from the prior year. For
example, while the Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement grant
requires that a state demonstrate progress in improving at least one
system as a condition of continuing to receive the grant, the other
incentive grants either include additional criteria that a state can
meet to receive the grant or do not include any performance-based
eligibility criteria at all. We have also noted that, given the scope
of changes needed to transform Federal transportation programs--
including moving toward a performance-based, data-driven approach for
the programs--such transformation might need to be achieved on an
incremental basis.\19\ In reauthorizing traffic safety grant programs,
Congress will be faced with deciding whether to move further toward a
performance-based, data-driven grant structure by linking a state's
receipt of grant funds to its achieving progress toward safety goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO-08-400
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Challenges in Administering Traffic Safety Incentive Grants
When we reviewed traffic safety incentive grants in 2008, state
officials noted that NHTSA's traffic safety incentive grants are
helping to improve traffic safety. However, these officials also
identified challenges in applying for and using the grant funds. As we
reported in 2008, each safety incentive grant has a separate
application process, which has proved challenging for some states to
administer, especially those with small safety offices.\20\ The five
applications are each due within a 1\1/2\ month period between June 15
and August 1. According to state highway safety officials, each
application requires extensive amounts of staff time and resources.
Although the application process is similar for each grant, having to
complete it several times within a short time-frame presents
administrative challenges for states. Several states, including those
with larger safety programs and more staff and resources than those
with smaller safety programs, expressed concerns about the demands the
application process placed on their staff. According to NHTSA, the
application requirements reflect statutory requirements; therefore,
changing the application requirements would require Congressional
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety
Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-
398 (Washington D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials in some states also said they would prefer more
flexibility in using safety incentive grant funds. For example,
officials in one state said they would like to use Motorcyclist Safety
grant funds, which can be used only for training and increasing other
motorists' awareness of motorcyclists, to build new training sites or
expand the size of current sites. However, the grant does not allow
them to do so, although it does allow states to lease or purchase new
sites. Officials in another state also noted that the Child Safety and
Booster Seat grant they received for one year was much larger than
expected; they would have preferred to use the additional funding for
other areas, such as the state's traffic safety information systems.
Again, because of limitations on the uses of funds established in
SAFETEA-LU, such flexibility would require Congressional action.
However, allowing such flexibility could complicate NHTSA's ability to
oversee states' use of grant funds and hold them accountable for using
the Federal funds to achieve high-priority safety goals. One way to
address this complication would be to allow states to use excess funds
from a grant for another traffic safety issue only if the state can
demonstrate sufficient progress toward achieving goals in the grant
area.
Auto Recall Process
As we reported in June 2011, NHTSA cannot require used-car
dealerships--which sold 11 million cars in 2009--to notify potential
buyers of an outstanding safety defect, or require that the defect be
remedied prior to sale. We recommended that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the Administrator of NHTSA seek legislative
authority to ensure that potential buyers of used cars are notified of
any outstanding recalls prior to sale.\21\,\22\ NTHSA agreed
to consider this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Franchised dealerships may sell or lease a new motor vehicle
only if the defect has been remedied before delivery of the motor
vehicle under the sale or lease. 49 U.S.C. 30120.
\22\ GAO-11-603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The upcoming reauthorization of NHTSA programs provides an
opportunity to explore options to increase consumer awareness of
recalls and protect consumers from unknowingly purchasing defective
vehicles. Requiring dealerships to notify potential buyers of a defect
could result in increased awareness of recalls, particularly among the
group of vehicle owners that, according to manufacturers and third-
party vendors, are the hardest to identify through postal mail--namely
second and third owners of a vehicle. However, an industry association
and the used-car dealerships we spoke with noted that it is challenging
to identify vehicles with outstanding recalls because there is no
requirement for used-car dealerships to be notified of a safety defect
through the use of first-class mail and there is no single source of
information on safety recalls--such as a centralized VIN database--that
can be accessed to determine if a car in a dealership's possession has
an outstanding recall. Although additional resources may be necessary
for NHTSA to implement such a database, working with manufacturers,
many of whom have already developed VIN search functions, could reduce
NHTSA's burden. NHTSA officials agreed that notifying used-car
dealerships of recalls is a challenge, and although the agency has not
sought this authority, it is in the process of purchasing software to
facilitate a VIN-based search engine on its website. In addition, NHTSA
officials indicated that in May 2011, the agency had identified several
policy proposals to Congress on vehicle safety issues. One of these
proposals would, with certain exceptions, prohibit used-car dealerships
and rental companies from selling or leasing a vehicle subject to a
recall before the repair has been made.
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Toomey, and members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you might have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Ms. Fleming, and I want the rest
of the panel to recognize that she set a very good example here
by actually ending one minute early.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Thank you very much for your statements.
Ms. Gillan?
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES
FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY (ADVOCATES)
Ms. Gillan. Good afternoon, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member
Toomey, and members of the Subcommittee. I welcome this
opportunity to appear today before you to strongly endorse on
behalf of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the
Committee's NHTSA authorization bill. The bill contains many
needed provisions that will result in safer cars and safer
drivers.
The Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee,
under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans, has been
responsible for some of the most significant advances in
highway and auto safety, including airbags as standard
equipment, and safety standards addressing tire performance,
child restraints, rollover prevention, and the list goes on.
These laws have literally saved thousands of lives, prevented
millions of injuries, and saved billions of dollars in health
care and societal costs.
Now, as we have heard today, traffic fatalities have
decreased these past few years, and some would say that we have
done enough. However, we must continue to build on these safety
gains and move forward on the unfinished safety agenda.
Let me briefly highlight some important features of the
bill and recommend the addition of others. Motor vehicle
crashes are the cause of 95 percent of all transportation-
related fatalities and 99 percent of all injuries, yet NHTSA's
budget represents only 1 percent of the overall DOT budget.
Only 1 percent.
A comprehensive reauthorization bill must include
sufficient funding to allow NHTSA to fulfill its mission and
pursue a cost effective safety agenda that will lead to many
more lives being saved.
We commend the Committee for directing NHTSA to upgrade
motor vehicle safety standards to address issues posed by the
transition in the 21st century from a mechanical to an
electronic vehicle fleet. In particular, the bill recognizes
the need to have a minimum standard to ensure the reliability
and performance of electronic systems that operate and control
vital vehicle safety systems.
Additionally, enactment of other provisions in the bill
will ensure that consumers have better access to agency
information about safety-related data recalls and defects.
To promote public safety protection, we encourage the
Committee to require rental car companies to repair known
safety defects, as required in legislation soon to be
introduced by Senator Schumer and Senator Boxer, rather than
just notifying consumers about those defects. Used car dealers
should also be included.
Other provisions addressing whistleblower protection,
potential conflicts of interest by former NHTSA employees, and
increased responsibility and accountability for corporate
misbehavior are needed to ensure that Government safety
investigations proceed without impediments.
In the last 20 years, improving safety by encouraging
adoption of State traffic safety laws has been a hallmark of
every single surface transportation bill. The Committee's bill
continues this tradition.
Distracted driving and impaired driving needlessly kill
tens of thousands of motorists every year. Advocates strongly
endorses measures that encourage state adoption of laws banning
texting while driving, and requiring the use of alcohol
ignition interlock devices for all offenders.
We also support the ROADS SAFE Act directing NHTSA to carry
out research on the feasibility of in-vehicle technologies to
prevent alcohol-impaired driving.
For teens, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, motor
vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in every State,
and every year more than 5,000 people die in crashes involving
teen drivers. Those are the drivers, their passengers and those
of us sharing the road with them.
Fortunately, there is an effective vaccine, but not all
states are using it. Comprehensive graduated drivers license
laws or GDL laws are incredibly effective in reducing teen
crashes.
We strongly urge the Committee to include the incentive
grant program contained in the STANDUP Act sponsored by Senator
Gillibrand, Senator Klobuchar and others on this Committee.
Finally, the Committee continues to act on its concerns
about child safety by directing agency actions with deadlines
in developing a 10-year-old crash test dummy, providing child
protection in side-impact crashes, improving child restraint
anchorage systems, and increasing seat belt usage with rear
seat belt reminders.
And just yesterday, NHTSA held a meeting to discuss and
address the risk of horrific death for young children
inadvertently left behind in hot vehicles, and I commend this
Committee for including the provision that will look at that
issue and find a solution.
There is no question that all of these measures are needed
and will significantly advance the safety of our children.
In conclusion, Advocates commends the Subcommittee Chair
and all of its members for proposing a NHTSA authorization bill
that will continue the legacy of saving lives, reducing
injuries, and will be strongly embraced by the public.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm
happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Toomey, and members
of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and
Insurance. I am Jacqueline Gillan, Vice President of Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Advocates is a coalition of public
health, safety, and consumer organizations, and insurers and insurance
agents that promotes highway safety through the adoption of safety
policies and regulations, and the enactment of state and Federal
traffic safety laws. Advocates is a unique coalition dedicated to
improving traffic safety by addressing motor vehicle crashes as a
public health issue.
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, under
the leadership of Democrats and Republicans, has been responsible for
some of the most significant advances in highway and auto safety
beginning with the drafting and passage of legislation in the early
1970s leading to the creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). In the past 20 years this Committee has passed
other bills requiring airbags as standard equipment in the front seat
of all passenger vehicles as well as directing agency action on
numerous vehicle safety standards on tire safety, child restraints,
rollover protection, anti-ejection prevention, roof crush strength, and
side impact protection. Furthermore, this Committee has worked
tirelessly to ensure the agency's decisions and deliberations on safety
issues are transparent and that consumers have access to critical and
essential information about vehicle safety and defects.
I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to strongly
endorse the Committee's draft reauthorization bill of NHTSA. The bill
contains many needed safety provisions to continue improvement of
highway safety and reduction of traffic fatalities. I discuss many of
these provisions in my testimony. I also raise several important
provisions that are not included in the bill but that are part of the
unfinished safety agenda and are worthy of your time and leadership
including: an incentive grant program to encourage state adoption of
teen driver safety, or graduated driver license (GDL) laws; requiring
an upgrade of the safety standard for seat back strength; and, stronger
efforts to encourage adoption of all-rider motorcycle helmet laws in
states.
Lives Saved by Safety Systems and Programs
Laws issued by Congress, including those that came out of this
Committee, and rules issued by NHTSA requiring safety standards and
technologies have saved thousands of lives. NHTSA studies show that
since 1960 motor vehicle safety technologies have saved more than
328,500 lives.\1\ For example, frontal air bags, a safety technology
that this Committee championed in 1991,\2\ saved 2,381 lives in 2009
and have saved more than 30,000 people since 1991.\3\. Seat belts saved
the lives of an estimated 12,713 people over the age of four in 2009,
and more than 72,000 lives in the years from 2005 through 2009.\4\
Child restraints saved the lives of 309 children age four and under in
2009 and more than 9,300 young children since 1975.\5\ These safety
measures have the potential to save many additional lives and prevent
costly injuries if they are used to protect everyone at risk who needs
them. For example, in 2009 if all passenger vehicle occupants age four
and over had worn seat belts, an additional 3,688 lives could have been
saved, and a 100 percent motorcycle helmet use rate would have saved an
additional 732 lives in motorcycle crashes.\6\ In addition to laws
requiring safety technologies, laws such as the 21-year-old-minimum-
drinking-age law saved 623 lives in 2009, and 3,940 lives from 2005-
2009.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and
Other Vehicle Safety Technologies, 1960-2002, DOT HS 809 833, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (Oct. 2004).
\2\ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA), Title II, Part B, 2508, Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
\3\ Traffic Safety Facts 2009, Lives Saved in 2009 by Restraint Use
and Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws, Back Cover,DOT HS 811 383, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (Sept. 2010).
\4\ Traffic Safety Facts 2009, op cit.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive NHTSA reauthorization bill with adequate funding
and requiring additional, reasonable safety standards will allow NHTSA
to pursue a robust regulatory safety agenda that will lead to many more
lives being saved.
Sufficient Funding for NHTSA is Essential
NHTSA's funding and staffing levels have suffered over the years to
the point where the agency, which is responsible for 95 percent of
transportation-related fatalities and 99 percent of transportation
injuries, receives only 1 percent of the overall U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) budget. NHTSA is responsible for the safety of 300
million Americans who drive or ride in or around some of the nearly 250
million registered motor vehicles that use our Nation's highways.\8\
Even with the recent downturn in motor vehicle traffic fatalities,
33,808 people were killed and more than 2.2 million injured in 2009 on
our highways at an annual cost of more than $230 billion.\9\ Motor
vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 5
to 34.\10\ In order to maintain safety gains and to improve on the
agency's efforts in detecting and investigating safety threats, a
justified and necessary increase in funding is essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ State Motor Vehicle Registrations, 2009, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/statistics/2009/pdf/mv1.pdf, last accessed on July
25, 2011.
\9\ The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, DOT HS 809
446, NHTSA (May 2002).
\10\ ``Injury Prevention and Control: Motor Vehicle Safety,''
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 2011, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current agency budget for motor vehicle safety activities and
research is a small portion of NHTSA's overall budget. It is totally
inadequate in the face of the agency's mission and safety
responsibilities. Current funding for the vehicle safety program budget
is only about $140 million for Fiscal Year 2011.\11\ While the current
Administration has increased agency and staffing in the past 2 years,
NHTSA remains woefully under-resourced. The agency ability to keep up
with technology and crash and injury trends is imperiled by lack of
sufficient resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, FY 2012 Budget Request, Exhibit
II-1, available at http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/budgetestimates/
nhtsa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency budget for vehicle safety should reflect the important
life-saving mission of the agency. In order to provide a solid
foundation for NHTSA to address the safety of current and future
vehicles, I urge the Committee to assure this small agency is given the
funds needed to do its job. Laws and programs administered by NHTSA are
responsible for saving an estimated 350,000 lives since 1975.\12\ NHTSA
authorization for the motor vehicle safety program should be increased
to $240M in FY2012, and $280M in FY2013, in line with what the
Committee proposed in last year's Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Traffic Safety Facts 2009, op cit.
\13\ S. 3302, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation:
Increase NHTSA's funding level for the vehicle safety
program to $240M in FY2012, and $280M in FY2013.
Highway Safety
Traffic Safety and Incentive Grant Programs
Over the past 15 years, through three separate authorization
laws,\14\ the Nation has spent billions of dollars on traffic safety
programs comprised of the Highway Safety Programs (Section 402) \15\
and various issue-specific incentive grant programs.\16\ The dollar
amounts are huge: more than $3.5 billion has been authorized for
highway safety and various incentive grant programs in the past 10
years. The highway safety and incentive grant programs have supported
many worthwhile efforts, especially state and local enforcement
campaigns that have been the cornerstone of local safety initiatives.
Also, several states have adopted optimal safety laws in response to
the incentive grant programs. In part, as a result of these efforts,
NHTSA estimates that many lives have been saved through seat belt and
child restraint use.\17\ Yet, no discernable major progress was made in
bringing down the total number of traffic deaths until 2008 when the
Nation's economy began to falter. While these programs are the
foundation of Federal and state traffic safety efforts, there is a need
for establishing performance measures and better oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10,
2005); the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
Pub. L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998); and, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec.
18, 1991).
\15\ 23 U.S.C. 402.
\16\ SAFETEA-LU included incentive grant programs for occupant
protection, safety belt performance, traffic safety information
systems, alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures, motorcyclist safety,
and child safety and child booster seat safety.
\17\ Traffic Safety Facts 2009, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of Performance Measures and Effective Oversight
The Section 402 highway safety grant program has been the
traditional means of providing the states with Federal funding to
support state and local safety initiatives, education and enforcement
efforts. Over time, however, states' insistence on providing greater
program flexibility, both in terms of funding and performance, has
complicated program accountability and oversight. By 1998, NHTSA had
``adopted a performance-based approach to oversight, under which the
states set their own highway safety goals and targets. . . .'' \18\
Even with each state developing an annual safety plan, weaknesses in
state plans were revised through subsequent ``improvement plans'' but
agency regional offices made limited and inconsistent use of the
revised plans.\19\ In fact, Congress had to require that NHTSA review
each state highway safety program at least once every 3 years and
perform other standard oversight procedures.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of
State Highway Safety Programs, p. 1, GAO-03-474, Government
Accountability Office (GAO) (Apr. 2003).
\19\ Id., p. 4.
\20\ 23 U.S.C. 412; enacted as Title II, 2008(a), SAFETEA-LU,
Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, Advocates supports the need for NHTSA to be
accountable for the oversight of the grant program and we support the
provision in the bill that would ensure regular reviews of the
expenditure of program funds. (Sec. 112).
Recommendation:
Require NHTSA to conduct reviews of state highway safety
grant programs on a regular schedule and at least once every 3
years.
Teen Driver Safety Incentive Grant Program
Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for
teenagers between 15 and 20 years of age, killing more young people
than homicide, suicide, cancer, and birth defects combined.\21\ A total
of 5,623 people were killed in the fatal crashes involving young
drivers in 2009, including young drivers themselves, their passengers,
pedestrians and the drivers and occupants of other vehicles.\22\ Since
1999, more than 90,000 fatalities have occurred nationwide in motor
vehicle crashes involving teen drivers.\23\ Additionally, teen driving
crashes have been estimated to cost society more than $34 billion
annually.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States, 2007, All Races,
Both Sexes, Age Groups 15-19, retrieved from Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Injury Prevention and Control: Data and
Statistics (WISQARS) Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999-2007, http:/
/webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html.
\22\ Traffic Safety Facts 2009, Young Drivers, DOT HS 811 400,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
\23\ Id.; Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Young Drivers, DOT HS 811 169,
National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Traffic Safety
Facts Research Note, Fatal Crashes Involving Young Drivers, DOT HS 811
218, National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
\24\ The 2006 Societal Cost of Crashes Involving Drivers 15-17
Years Old, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Dec. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, there is a proven method for reducing teen driving
crashes. Graduated driver license (GDL) laws phase in driving
privileges over time, using restrictions on nighttime driving, teen
passengers, and use of cell phones. Research has shown the
effectiveness of strong state GDL programs in reducing teen driver
crashes, saving lives, and lowering societal costs.
Despite the proven success of GDL laws, state laws vary widely in
strength. As a result, millions of novice teen drivers lack some of the
most basic protections that could prevent teen crashes and save lives.
It is time for Congress to intercede in this public health crisis to
encourage state adoption of strong, comprehensive GDL laws.
Legislation that takes this action has already been introduced in
Congress. The Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP)
Act, S. 528, requires state GDL laws to meet proven minimum standards.
The bill also provides for $25 million per year for 3 years, funded
through the Highway Trust Fund, as incentive grants to accelerate state
action to adopt these lifesaving laws.
These proposed incentives are a tiny fraction of the overall
Highway Trust Fund resources: the $25 million annual cost of incentives
is less than one tenth of 1 percent (0.07 percent) of the Average
Annual Total Receipts ($33.41 billion) coming into the Highway Trust
Fund Highway Account throughout the past 10 years. Furthermore, the $25
million annual cost of the proposed incentives is less than one tenth
of 1 percent (0.07 percent) of the costs associated with crashes
involving teen drivers ages 16 and 17 ($34.4 billion in 2006).
We strongly urge the Committee to include teen driving incentive
grants in the NHTSA authorization legislation.
Recommendation:
Include the teen driver safety incentive grant program from
S. 528.
Impaired Driving Countermeasures--Grants and Research
Drinking and driving continues to be a national scourge on our
Nation's highways. While a number of measures have successfully reduced
the historically high levels of carnage caused by drunk driving back in
the 1980s, nearly a third of traffic deaths occur in alcohol-involved
crashes.\25\ Although the total number of alcohol-related crash deaths
declined in 2009 to 10,839 people, 7 percent less than in 2008, alcohol
involved crashes still accounted for 32 percent of all traffic
fatalities.\26\ Except for the recent 2008-2009 dip in fatalities
during the recession, the annual level of alcohol-involved crash
fatalities did not decline significantly in the prior 10 years.\27\
Previous decreases in fatalities were in large measure due to a wave of
enactment of state anti-impaired driving laws, serious enforcement of
those laws and educational efforts by MADD and others to raise
awareness of the problem. In order to continue to reduce the number of
needless alcohol related crash deaths suffered on our highways each
year, and to maintain the fatality reductions of recent years, more
must be done to keep impaired drivers off our streets and roads. We
think technology can help solve this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Traffic Safety Fact Sheets 2009, at
1, DOT HS 811 385, NHTSA (2010).
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates strongly supports requiring the use of ignition
interlocks for all drunk driving offenders in every state to prevent
them from starting their vehicle when they are impaired. An alcohol
ignition interlock device (IID) is similar to a breathalyzer used by
police to determine if a driver has an illegally high blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) level. The IID is linked to the vehicle ignition
system and requires a driver who has been previously convicted of an
impaired driving offense, and required by a court to install an IID, to
breathe into the device. If the analyzed result exceeds the programmed
BAC legal limit for the driver, the vehicle will not start. A majority
of Americans support the use of IIDs to keep impaired drivers off the
road. In 2009, a survey conducted by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) found that 84 percent of respondents said that
IIDs for convicted drunk drivers is a good idea.\28\ Advocates also
strongly supports legislation introduced by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ),
the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act of 2011, S. 273, that
encourages state adoption of IID technology and includes potential
sanctions for states that do not act in a timely manner. Advocates
commends the Committee for including incentive grants for states that
adopt and implement alcohol ignition interlock laws in its NHTSA
reauthorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 2011 Roadmap to State Highway Safety Laws, p. 30, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety (Jan. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Advocates supports legislation introduced by Senator
Udall (D-NM), the Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping
Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere (ROADS SAFE) Act, S. 510, and the
Committee's inclusion of that bill's language in the NHTSA
reauthorization legislation. This will direct NHTSA to carry out a
research effort to explore the benefits and challenges of in-vehicle
technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving. (Sec. 111). Future
technology can be built into vehicles to detect alcohol and prevent
drivers with illegal levels of alcohol in their blood stream from
operating a motor vehicle. This type of technology could work without
invasive testing or intrusive detection methods, and would not engage
unless the driver's BAC level is above the legal limit. This project
holds realistic hope that thousands of annual deaths can be prevented
and we should support research to make this technology a reality.
Recommendation:
Congress should adopt reauthorization legislation that
funds:
Incentive grant program to encourage state adoption of
ignition interlock devices for all offenders; and,
Research to develop an automatic, non-invasive in-vehicle
driver alcohol detection system to prevent persons who are
legally intoxicated from driving motor vehicles.
Distracted Driving Grants
Although various kinds of distractions have been a part of driving
since the automobile was invented, the emergence of personal electronic
communications devices that can readily be used while operating a
vehicle has presented a whole new category of driver distraction and
danger. The growing use of built-in and after-market or nomadic devices
by drivers began with cell phone use but has proliferated through a
myriad of personal electronics that allow drivers to access the
Internet, perform office work and to send and receive text messages
while driving. As a result, in 2009, there were an estimated 5,474
fatalities and 448,000 injuries in crashes where driver distraction was
a factor.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA
Databases, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, at 1, DOT HS 811 216,
NHTSA (Sept. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text messaging while driving poses the most extreme and evident
crash risk danger. Diversion of attention from the driving task to
input or read a text message clearly interferes with drivers' ability
to safely operate a motor vehicle. A 2009 study found that text
messaging while driving increases the risk of a safety-critical event
by more than 23 times compared to drivers who are focused on the
driving task.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Olson, et al., Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operations, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mounting number of research studies and data show that the use of
a mobile telephone while driving, whether hand-held or hands-free, is
equivalent to driving under the influence of alcohol at the threshold
of the legal limit of .08 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC).
Hand-held mobile phone use and dialing while driving require drivers to
divert attention from the road and from the driving task, yet hands-
free phone use has also been shown to involve cognitive distraction
that is no less dangerous in terms of diverting attention from the
driving task and the potential risk of crash involvement.
To date, 34 states and the District of Columbia have enacted all-
driver text messaging bans, although 3 of these states have secondary
enforcement, but 16 states have no such law.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Cellphone and Texting Laws,'' Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (Jul. 2011), available at http://www.iihs.org/laws/
cellphonelaws.aspx.
The Administration has taken some good first steps to reverse the
rising tide of crashes that involve distracted driving as a factor. The
Secretary of Transportation has made distracted driving a number one
priority and convened two national conferences on distracted driving
\32\ in an effort to keep the focus on this safety problem at the
national level. Just after the first such conference, President Obama
issued a proclamation banning text messaging by Federal employees,\33\
and the DOT took measures to curb distracted driving in commercial
vehicles.\34\ However, the problem of distracted driving in commercial
vehicles is not limited only to text messaging. For that reason,
Advocates filed a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which regulates commercial
vehicle operations, seeking a review of all types of electronic devices
used in commercial vehicles, not just those that support text
messaging.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Distracted Driving Summit, September 30-October 1, 2009
(Washington, D.C.) and Distracted Driving Summit, September 21, 2010
(Washington, D.C.), information last accessed on Sept. 20, 2010 and
available at http://www.distraction.gov/2010summit/.
\33\ Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving,
Executive Order No. 13513 (Oct. 1, 2009), 74 FR 51225 (Oct. 6, 2009).
\34\ See Limiting the Use of Wireless Communications Devices, Final
Rule, 75 FR 59118 (Sept.. 27, 2010); Regulatory Guidance Concerning the
Applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to
Texting by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, Notice of Regulatory
Guidance, 75 FR 4305 (Jan. 27, 2010).
\35\ Distracted Driving Petition for Rulemaking: Requesting
Issuance of a Rule to Consider Prohibiting or Restricting the Use of
Electronic Devices During the Operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles,
dated September 24, 2009, filed by Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety with the FMCSA Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates welcomes the proposed Distracted Driver Grant program
(Sec. 108) to encourage states to adopt primary enforcement laws to
prohibit drivers from sending and receiving text messages while
operating a motor vehicle, and put prohibitions on cellular telephone
use by drivers who are under 18 years of age. These are reasonable
safety measures that should be the law in every state and we support
the need to encourage adoption of these laws.
Recommendation:
Include an incentive grant program to encourage enactment of
state laws that prohibit distracted driving.
All Rider Motorcycle Helmet Laws
NHTSA estimates that 80 percent of motorcycle crashes injure or
kill a rider.\36\ 2008 was the 11th straight year in which motorcycle
crash fatalities increased, rising to 5,290 motorcyclists killed and
96,000 injured.\37\ This is more than double the motorcycle fatalities
in 1998 and a level not seen since 1981.\38\ While motorcycle
fatalities finally decreased to 4,462 in 2009, that figure still
represents fatality numbers that are more than double what the death
toll was in 1997, the last year in which motorcycle fatalities
experienced a decline.\39\ While fatality and injury rates for other
types of vehicles have dropped over the years, the fatality and injury
rates for motorcycles have generally been on the rise.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Motorcycle Safety, National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT HS 807 709 (Oct. 1999), available at http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/moto
safety.html.
\37\ Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT HS 811 159, at 1,
NHTSA (2009).
\38\ A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway
Safety Offices, DOT HS 810 891, p. 5-4, NHTSA (3d ed., Jan. 2008)
(NHTSA Safety Countermeasures Guide).
\39\ Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Table 10, p. 28.
\40\ Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, motorcycles make up less than 3 percent of all
registered vehicles and only 0.4 percent of all vehicle miles traveled,
but motorcyclists accounted for 13 percent of total traffic fatalities
and 19 percent of all occupant fatalities.\41\ Helmets saved the lives
of 1,483 motorcyclists in 2009 and 732 more in all states could have
been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.\42\ NHTSA estimates
that 148,000 motorcyclists have been killed in traffic crashes since
1966.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, pp. 1 & 3.
\42\ 2011 Roadmap to State Highway Safety Laws, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, Jan. 2011, p. 17.
\43\ Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years following enactment of Federal traffic safety
statutes, annual motorcycle rider deaths were much lower in part
because most states had all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. Congress used
the power of the sanction to require states to enact helmet use
laws.\44\ When the sanction was repealed by Congress, the states
followed suit with more than half the states repealing their helmet
laws.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act of 1966,
Pub. L. 89-563 (Sept. 9, 1966).
\45\ See e.g., Evaluation of the Reinstatement of the Helmet Law in
Louisiana, DOT HS 810 956, NHTSA (May 2008), available at http://
www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_down
loader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/
Articles/Associated%20
Files/810956.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, only 20 states and the District of Columbia require helmet
use by all motorcycle riders. The map below indicates the status of the
law in each state. In 2007, the NTSB recommended that all states
without an all-rider helmet law should adopt one.\46\ Research
conclusively and convincingly shows that all-rider helmet laws save
lives and reduce medical costs. While helmets will not prevent crashes
from occurring, they have a significant and positive effect on
preventing head and brain injuries during crashes. These are the most
life-threatening and long-term injuries as well as the most costly. In
1992, California's all-rider helmet law took effect resulting in a 40
percent drop in its Medicaid costs and total hospital charges for
medical treatment of motorcycle riders.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ NTSB Recommendations H-07-38, available at http://
www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/H07_38.pdf, and H-07-39, available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/H07_39.pdf.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation:
Include a provision that requires states to adopt all-rider
motorcycle helmet laws.
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the 21st Century
I now turn to the need for NHTSA, in the second decade of the
twenty-first century, to upgrade its motor vehicle safety standards to
address issues posed by the transition from a mechanical to an
electronic vehicle fleet. Nearly every aspect of modern motor vehicles
depends on electronics and computerized systems but there are no
minimum standards to ensure that safety systems reliant on electronics
will not malfunction or degrade prematurely. In the last session of
Congress, this Committee marked up the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010
\48\ which included many provisions aimed at protecting electronic-
based safety systems. The concerns raised during a series of hearings
held by this Committee,\49\ and by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee,\50\ led to a number of conclusions and recommendations
regarding what additional standards are needed to improve the safety
performance of motor vehicles and what procedural changes are necessary
to improve the performance of NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, Report No. S. 111-381 (Dec.
21, 2010).
\49\ ``S. 3302, The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010,'' Hearing
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
May 19, 2010; ``Hearing to Review the Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2010 Budget,'' Hearing before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 4, 2010; ``Toyota's
Recalls and the Government's Response,'' Hearing before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 2, 2010.
\50\ ``Update on Toyota and NHTSA's Response to the Problem of
Sudden Unintended Acceleration,'' Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, House Energy and Commerce Committee, May
20, 2010; ``Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5381, the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act,'' hearing before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection, House Energy and Commerce Committee, May 6, 2010; ``NHTSA
Oversight: The Road Ahead,'' before the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, House Energy and Commerce Committee,
March 11, 2010; and, ``Response by Toyota and NHTSA to Incidents of
Sudden Unintended Acceleration,'' before the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Feb. 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to vehicle safety, it is evident that electronic
systems are relied on for nearly every vehicle function from power
windows to airbag deployment to brake and throttle controls. For this
reason, a minimum standard is needed to ensure that the electronic
systems that operate and control vehicle safety systems are shielded to
protect against electromagnetic or other forms of interference and from
damage and deterioration during routine use, wear and tear. For this
reason, Advocates supports both a minimum safety standard to govern the
electronics that are built into motor vehicles (Sec. 504), as well as
establishment of a center by NHTSA for electronics knowledge and
expertise (Sec. 501) that can leverage the agency's access to
information and engineers trained in vehicle-based electronics,
software and related disciplines. The importance of these areas of
expert knowledge will only become more critical as vehicle safety
functions and performance become more dependent on computerization and
electronics.
The Committee's hearings also pointed to the need for a fail-safe
brake system override that can cause motor vehicles to come to a full
stop regardless of whether the inputs causing unintended acceleration
come from faulty vehicle controls or the driver. Brake performance
should always take precedence over conflicting commands to accelerate.
For this reason, Advocates supports the direction to NHTSA to require a
brake override standard (Sec. 502) and to investigate the need for
additional requirements to govern pedal placement and potential
obstructions (Sec. 503).
As vehicles become platforms for not just safety systems but also
for ``infotainment'' and work-related communications devices, the
potential for diversion of driver attention from the driving task has
increased. This Committee has been a leader in trying to eliminate
driver distractions, having marked up the Distracted Driving Prevention
Act of 2009, S. 1938, in the 111th Congress and including provisions in
the Committee draft NHTSA authorization bill. The Committee again is
promoting safe driving by including a provision to prevent drivers from
viewing video monitors and screens for entertainment purposes while
driving. (Sec. 507). It is a fundamental premise of driving safety that
the driver should be paying attention to the road and traffic while
driving, not engaging in other activities or distractions. The
availability of viewing screens needlessly adds another diverting
temptation that should not be permitted when operating a motor vehicle.
For this reason, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR)
have long prohibited commercial motor vehicle drivers from having a
television screen or ``other means of visually receiving a television
broadcast'' in the front seat of the vehicle.\51\ We support this
measure as a reasonable and commonsense limitation on the driver while
operating a motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 49 C.F.R. 393.88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates also strongly supports the Committee's commitment to
future safety research by including a requirement to upgrade the
current Federal regulation on Event Data Recorders (EDRs). (Sec. 506).
EDRs will provide an immense wealth of objective vehicle information in
the event of a crash that can be used to help in crash reconstruction
and in aiding research to develop more effective crash avoidance and
crashworthiness countermeasures in the future.
Recommendations:
Congress should adopt reauthorization legislation that:
Establishes safety standards for vehicle stopping
distance, brake override and electronic systems
performance;
Prohibits electronic screens from displaying visual
entertainment programs that are visible to the driver;
Considers the need to adopt safety standards for pedal
placement and push-button ignition systems;
Requires event data recorders on all new passenger
vehicles and revises the requirements of the current event
data recorder regulations; and,
Creates at NHTSA a center for electronics, software and
engineering expertise.
NHTSA's Authority to Address Safety and Consumer Issues Should Be
Expanded
Mr. Chairman, NHTSA is over 40 years old \52\ and should be given
authority and powers commensurate with the agency's experience and
mandate. This responsibility should be coupled with powers that permit
the agency to fully perform its duties and allow the agency to exercise
its enforcement authority to increase compliance. For this reason
Advocates supports amending several Federal laws to provide NHTSA with
enhanced authority to address existing safety problems with 21st
century approaches that will allow the agency to leverage its resources
to protect the American public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ NHTSA was formally established by the Highway Safety Act of
1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason we support amending Federal law to permit NHTSA to
fully participate in traffic and vehicle safety legislative discussions
that take place in state capitals.\53\ (Sec. 409). The expertise
garnered through Federal safety programs and activities, and knowledge
derived from national data collection, should be directly shared by
NHTSA with state and local officials considering relevant legislation.
In a modern age of instant communications and information search
engines, it is implausible that any Federal official providing data and
statistical results on a safety issue could overcome the will and
access to information of state and local officials or, by so doing,
interfere with the legislative process on the state and local levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 49 U.S.C. 30105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, we believe that after more than 30 years it is time to
rescind some or all of the restriction that prohibits NHTSA from
allowing seat belt reminders that continue to sound after the first 8
seconds of vehicle operation, or that prohibits manufacturers from
voluntarily introducing front and rear seat belt reminder systems into
their vehicles.\54\ (Sec. 302). The belt reminder ``buzzer''
restriction has held back technology and innovation that has been used
to save lives in Europe and around the world. The result has been that
belt use rates in this country are lower than they could or should be.
Manufacturers are even graded on the sophistication of their seat belt
reminder systems under the European vehicle safety consumer rating
system called EURO NCAP.\55\ Although the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) consumer ratings system was invented in the U.S., by NHTSA, the
agency does not include seat belt reminder systems in its U.S. ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 49 U.S.C. 30122(d) and 30124.
\55\ The European New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) includes
ratings for seat belt reminder systems as part of the Safety Assist
category. Last accessed on July 22, 2011 from http://www.euroncap.com/
Content-Web-Page/7b5a942e-a578-4108-8c55-2e2dc1d1bceb/safety-
assist.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also concur that NHTSA needs additional authority regarding
odometer fraud and the importation of vehicles and vehicle equipment.
(Sections 305-307). As we note elsewhere, the use of electronic systems
has changed most aspects of modern motor vehicles including odometers
and the methods used to commit odometer fraud by rolling back vehicle
odometers. The wording of the governing statutory provision,\56\ as
well as how the information is disclosed and the penalties for odometer
fraud \57\ all need to be updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 49 U.S.C. 32705.
\57\ Id., 32709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations:
Congress should adopt reauthorization legislation that:
Permits NHTSA to share its expertise with state and local
legislatures;
Allows NHTSA to require and vehicle manufacturers to
provide advanced seat belt use reminder systems for all
designated seating positions in passenger vehicles; and
Extends NHTSA's authority to combat odometer fraud.
Greater Transparency and Accountability is Needed to Protect Consumers
During hearings held by this Committee regarding the adoption of
the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, numerous problems that impede and
hinder the public's right to know about vehicle defects, unfortunately,
came to light. Among the issues that were discovered as part of the
investigation of how the agency handled the consumer complaints
regarding sudden unintended acceleration, were issues related to the
agency's performance of its investigatory functions, its handling of
recalls and defect information, as well as the disclosure of critical
safety data and information to the public and public access to agency
safety data bases and information. Many of these issues were addressed
in last year's Motor Vehicle Safety Act \58\ and should be included in
the agency reauthorization bill because they will achieve valuable and
necessary improvements in NHTSA's policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ S. 3302, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, NHTSA information and interaction with the public over
vehicle safety recalls will be vastly improved if more information
about recalls and defects is available. Many consumers have difficulty
understanding whether their vehicle, or a used vehicle they wish to
purchase, has been the subject of a safety recall. Providing that
information in an easy-to-access and user friendly database that
consumers can search by the vehicle identification number (VIN) of
their vehicle is a commonsense solution to an all too common problem.
(Sec. 401) Likewise, providing consumers with ready Internet access to
reports and communications regarding vehicle safety and recalls (Sec.
403) that are required to be provided to the Secretary of
Transportation will go a long way toward making safety information
about motor vehicles available to the people who own and lease them.
At the same time, providing the public with greater disclosure of
the Early Warning Data, (Sec. 404) that was originally required to be
provided under the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability
and Documentation (TREAD) Act,\59\ will allow the public to assist the
agency with information and analysis of the volumes of data sent to the
agency by manufacturers. In addition, promoting the reporting of defect
complaints and information by requiring an in-vehicle consumer notice
(Sec. 407) and by establishing a hotline for employees of
manufacturers, dealerships and mechanics to report information
regarding safety defects or problems (Sec. 402), will assist the agency
in identifying and substantiating safety problems that have not
previously come to light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally important, we must ensure that people within the industry
who are willing to disclose information about safety problems and
defects are protected from retaliation. (Sec. 408). So-called ``whistle
blower'' protection is available in a number of industries to ensure
that when an employee with inside knowledge of a defect or safety
problem comes forward in the public interest, that person will not have
to suffer retribution for their act of civic responsibility. At the
same time, government officials who have worked for NHTSA should have
some restrictions placed on their capacity to use their knowledge and
expertise for manufacturers that interact with NHTSA regarding safety
recall issues. (Sec. 410 Revolving Door). Advocates agrees that
reasonable limits should be adopted to deter former NHTSA employees
from influencing the progress or outcome of vehicle safety matters by
communicating with or appearing before agency personnel on behalf of
vehicle manufacturers. These are appropriate and necessary measures to
ensure public confidence in the agency's safety activities.
Advocates also supports the need for corporate officers of vehicle
and equipment manufacturers to take personal responsibility for the
documents that are requested or required to be provided to the
Secretary and NHTSA (Sec. 405) during the conduct of a safety defect
investigation. Unfortunately, experience shows that unless senior
company officials understand that they will be personally accountable
for the accuracy of the information that is submitted, the company may
not make the full disclosure needed by the agency to conduct a thorough
investigation. Along with this change it is also necessary to
substantially increase the maximum penalties for violation of the key
vehicle safety act disclosure requirements to a maximum of $250,000,000
(Sec. 303). The failure to provide honest and full disclosure and
cooperation of potential safety defects could result in deaths and
injuries and those that choose to place their interests above the
safety of consumers should pay a high price for such behavior.
Advocates supports the need to ensure that disclosures of defects
and noncompliance with safety requirements are made known to persons
who rent or lease motor vehicles (Sec. 411). An owner of a business
that rents motor vehicles to the public, and knows that the rental
vehicles are subject to a safety recall or failure of compliance should
make their customers aware of the information before renting the
vehicle. The disclosure should be clear and conspicuous so that the
person renting the vehicle is adequately informed of the safety problem
and gives informed consent before renting the vehicle. Likewise, the
same consumer disclosure should be made applicable to owners of used
car businesses who resell vehicles that are subject to a safety recall
or noncompliance. In both instances the business that owns the vehicle
is in a much better position to know or determine whether the vehicle
has been the subject of a safety recall or noncompliance notice.
We also favor requiring NHTSA to conduct a study of its crash data
collected through the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). (Sec.
412). The NASS is the cornerstone of motor vehicle crash data providing
information to NHTSA in order to estimate highway deaths and injuries
and crash trends. NASS was designed by a panel of experts in data
collection and statistical analysis to collect data on crashes from
multiple sources to provide a detailed and comprehensive assessment of
the crash event and resulting injuries. The plan envisioned 75 teams of
two to four investigators assigned to a geographical area with a total
of 200 trained investigators examining two statistically sampled
crashes per week, for a total of nearly 19,000 crashes each year.
Currently, NASS collects far fewer cases, less than 5,000 each year,
which is barely sufficient to provide a representative sample and
threatens the agency's ability to conduct analysis on emerging crash
and injury trends because the database will be too small to identify
injury patterns.
Recommendations:
Congress should adopt reauthorization legislation that:
Requires NHTSA to update and improve its vehicle safety
data bases and ensures that manufacturer notices of
software upgrades are available to consumers;
Makes more early warning data publicly available;
Provides consumers with information on how to report
vehicle defects inside new vehicles;
Establishes a hotline for reporting vehicle defects,
noncompliance and safety problems by mechanics and
employees of manufacturers and dealerships;
Affords employment protection to whistle blowers;
Prevents senior NHTSA officials who leave the agency from
communicating or appearing before agency officials on
vehicle safety matters for 2 years;
Requires senior officials of motor vehicle manufacturers
to take personal responsibility when filing reports with
NHTSA;
Increases the penalties for violations of safety
regulations;
Requires that owners of car rental and used car businesses
must disclose vehicle safety recall or noncompliance
information to prospective renters or purchasers; and,
Requires NHTSA to review the NASS data collection program
and report to Congress with recommendations for improving
the program.
Child Safety Standards
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children
four to 14 years old. In 2009, 329 children ages four through seven
died in motor vehicle crashes.\60\ Improper restraint in an adult seat
belt, or lack of any restraint at all, significantly contributes to
traffic fatalities among this young population. With one exception,
seatback strength, the Committee has included all of the following
provisions to improve child safety in the reauthorization bill.
Advocates supports both the Committee bill and the Committee's efforts
to strengthen child safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 2011 Roadmap to State Highway Safety Laws, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, Jan. 2011, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection for Older Children
In 2002, Congress passed Anton's Law,\61\ again because of the
leadership of this Committee, to improve child restraints for older
children, aged four to 10 years old. The law instructed NHTSA to
establish performance requirements of child restraints for children
weighing more than 50 pounds and develop a 10-year-old child test
dummy. While NHTSA issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) in November, 2010 to address child restraint systems, the
requirements of Anton's Law have gone largely unfulfilled. Advocates'
commends the Committee for expanding requirements for child restraint
systems for children weighing more than 65 pounds in its
reauthorization proposal, but also calls on Congress to direct NHTSA to
implement regulations protecting older child passengers in a timely
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Impact Crashes
Current Federal safety standards require U.S.-marketed child
restraints to meet dynamic testing simulating a 30 mph frontal impact.
This test is conducted by decelerating a test sled instead of
conducting a crash test. In response to Section 14 of the TREAD Act,
NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), on May
1, 2002, on the development of a side impact protection standard for
child restraint systems (CRS).\62\ The following year, the agency
decided not to proceed with rulemaking due to the lack of data to
evaluate the problem, available countermeasures and proper injury
criteria, but stated that research on the subject would continue.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ NHTSA NPRM on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child
Restraint Systems, 67 FR 21806 (May 1,2002).
\63\ Report to Congress: Child Restraint Systems--Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, NHTSA (Feb.
2004), pp. ii-iii, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/
NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent papers summarizing the research conducted to evaluate
potential child side impact test procedures, NHTSA identified that
children represent over 50 percent of rear seat occupants in vehicle
collisions. ``Side Impacts are the second most frequent collisions
resulting in child occupants sustaining serious life-threatening head,
neck and chest injuries.'' \64\ The agency concluded that additional
testing is needed to refine test parameters, validate the test
methodology and to examine additional child restraint systems. There
was no indication as to when research and testing would be concluded.
It has been more than 10 years since the enactment of the TREAD Act and
9 years since NHTSA stated that it would undertake efforts to address
child protection in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ NHTSA's Initial Evaluation of Child Side Impact Test
Procedures, NHTSA Paper No. 09-0539, available at http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0539.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems
For many years, parents have been advised for safety reasons to
secure children in the rear seat of vehicles. NHTSA has taken some
action to accommodate child restraints secured in vehicle rear seats,
but has failed to initiate other measures to improve rear seat safety
for children.
In 1999, NHTSA required that by 2002 passenger vehicles and child
restraints must be equipped with lower anchorages and tethers for
children--the ``LATCH'' system--in order to promote an easier system of
child restraint in place of using vehicle seat belts to secure child
restraints. Although parents have long been advised that the center
rear seating position is the safest for a child, no LATCH System was
required in the center rear seating position. Instead, the agency
required LATCH be installed at both outboard rear seating positions. A
child who is secured in the outboard LATCH-equipped seating position is
at greater risk in a side impact crash than a child in the center
seating position.
A 2005 agency report established that many parents and other adults
were confused about how the LATCH system works, could not identify or
find the lower anchorages, and did not realize that there were no LATCH
systems in the rear center seating position of passenger vehicles.\65\
Amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 225 to improve
the visibility of, accessibility to, and ease of use for lower
anchorages and tethers in all rear seat seating positions will increase
use rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Child Restraint Use Survey LATCH Use and Misuse, NHTSA, DOT HS
810 679 (Dec. 2006), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/
Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Infor
mation/Articles/Associated%20Files/LATCH_Report_12-2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear Seat Belt Reminders
Although seat belt systems are installed at all seating positions
in passenger vehicles, reminder systems to buckle up are only mandated
in the front seating positions. Seat belt use in the rear seats is
significantly lower than front seat use rates--in 2009, rear seat belt
use was 70 percent, compared to 84 percent use by front seat
occupants.\66\ According to a 2010 press release from the Illinois
Department of Transportation, 2009 crash data indicated that fatally
injured rear seat passengers were twice as likely to be unbuckled than
fatally injured front seat passengers.\67\ 2005 data linked with
hospital discharge data illustrated that failure to wear a seatbelt in
the rear seat was associated with a 44 percent increase in the cost of
a hospital stay following a collision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Occupant Restraint Use in 2009--Results From the National
Occupant Protection Use Survey Controlled Intersection Study, NHTSA,
DOT HS 811 414 (Nov. 2010).
\67\ IDOT, State Police and Local Enforcement Boost Efforts to
Increase Safety Belt Usage and to Help Curb Impaired Driving, Illinois
Department of Transportation Press Release, 12 Nov. 2010, available at
http://www.dot.state.il.us/press/r111210.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear seat reminder systems can both remind the driver and rear seat
occupants to buckle up and alert the driver when a passenger unbuckles
the seat belt while the vehicle is moving. Given that a majority of
parents secure their children in child restraints in the rear seat of
vehicles, rear seat reminder systems are needed to ensure that they are
buckled up. Rear seat belt reminders would also likely increase belt
use rates among teen passengers riding with a teen driver.
On August 28, 2007, safety groups filed a petition with NHTSA
requesting that seat belt reminder systems be required in the rear
seats of cars and in the second and third row of seats in multipurpose
passenger vehicles, including minivans and sport utility vehicles.\68\
The agency has not yet responded to the petition. Congressional action
to initiate rulemaking is needed in order to move forward in a timely
manner with this lifesaving feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Petition for Rulemaking--FMVSS Standard No. 208, filed by
Public Citizen (28 Aug. 2007), Docket ID: NHTSA-2007-29108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unattended Passenger Reminders
All too often, adults inadvertently leave infants and young
children in child restraint systems in the rear seats of passenger
vehicles. Exposure of young children, particularly in hot and cold
weather, leads to hyper- and hypothermia that can result in death or
severe injuries. A review of media reports on the 494 child vehicular
hyperthermia, or heat stroke deaths between 1998 and 2010 found that 54
percent (268) of the incidents occurred when the child was unknowingly
forgotten in the vehicle by a caregiver. Fifty-four (54 percent) of the
children who die in hot vehicles are under the age of two (2). Such
inadvertent deaths can be avoided by equipping vehicles with sensors to
detect the presence of the child and sound a warning at the time the
driver locks the vehicle with a child inside. Similar warning features
currently remind drivers when they have left the key in the ignition,
left the headlamps on, and when a door is open while the vehicle is in
motion.
Seatback Strength
The safety standard for seatback performance has not been upgraded
since it was first adopted in 1967. When the driver or front passenger
seatback fails or collapses in a crash, it endangers both the front and
rear seat occupants. Regulatory compliance rear impact crash tests for
fuel system integrity (FMVSS 301), conducted by NHTSA, reveal that
almost every seatback fails, allowing a front seat occupant to be
propelled into the rear seating area. Seat belt systems that are
effective in frontal crashes are not designed to keep front seat
occupants from slipping out of the belt system when the seatback
collapses, leading to an increase in the risk of injury to the front
seat occupant.
Parents have long been advised to secure young children in the rear
seat. Also, as the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet gradually downsizes in
response to more costly fuels and environmental concerns, the distance
between forward seatbacks and rear seated occupants will be reduced.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) has determined that
collapsing seatbacks are a serious threat to children seated behind
adult occupants. Many children were found to have been injured in
crashes in which seatbacks collapse or there is excessive seat
deformation. The failure of a seatback directly in front of a child
places the child at risk, and when there is an occupant in the seat
that fails there is double risk of injury to the child. NHTSA noted in
a 1997 study that an examination of the interaction between front
seatback failures and injuries to rear seat occupants may be important
to assess the entirety of the occupant protection implications of
seatback failure. In 2004, NHTSA stated that the weight of a passenger
when added to the weight of the seatback itself will, even in a low
severity crash, produce loads exceeding the level required by FMVSS
207.
Recommendations:
Congress should require NHTSA to:
Establish a 2-year deadline for NHTSA to complete
development and adopt into regulation the HIII-10C 10-year-
old child crash test dummy;
Issue a final rule regarding child restraint side impact
safety within 2 years;
Issue final rules within 2 years that require more
visible, recognizable and easy-to-use LATCH attachment
equipment and LATCH systems in the center rear seating
position of all vehicles in which a center LATCH system can
be properly installed;
Issue a final rule within 3 years requiring that all
seating positions including vehicle rear seats be equipped
with seat belt reminder systems;
Include rear seat belt reminders as part of the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) to encourage industry compliance
prior to issuance of final rule.
Issue a final rule on child-left-behind reminders; and,
Issue a final rule within 2 years that upgrades the
performance of seats, including seatbacks, head restraints,
and active/passive restraint to increase the protection of
children and adults in passenger motor vehicle crashes.
Conclusion
The quality of life for all Americans depends on a safe, reliable,
economical and environmentally sound surface transportation system.
Transportation solutions to promote mobility and the economy must
involve not only financial investments, but investments in safety as
well. Highway crashes cost our Nation more than $230 billion annually.
This is money that could be better spent on addressing surface
transportation needs. Making necessary changes to the performance and
effectiveness of the state traffic safety grant programs, including
incentive grant programs to spur state adoption of lifesaving laws on
teen driving, impaired driving and occupant protection and directing
government action to improve the safety of motor vehicles will prevent
crashes, reduce deaths and injuries and lower societal costs that are
an economic drain on our economy.
The decrease in highway fatalities that has occurred over the last
2 years affords an opportunity to continue the downward trend and make
substantial and lasting reductions in annual fatalities. There are no
acceptable excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of lifesaving
laws and vehicle safety standards that can help secure these lower
fatality levels in the future. Over the course of the next 2 years we
can save thousands of lives each year if we act wisely and act now. If
the opportunity slips away without action we could suffer more than
65,000 fatalities and another 4 million injuries in that 2-year time
frame.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I am
pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Nason?
STATEMENT OF HON. NICOLE NASON, FORMER NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
Ms. Nason. Mr. Chairman and Senator Toomey and Senator
Blunt, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I am going to set a record and note that I had a written
statement, which I would like to be included and ask that this
letter, Coalition Support for the ROADS SAFE Act, be included
with my testimony.
Senator Pryor. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Coalition Support for the ROADS SAFE Act
July 26, 2011
Hon. John D. (JAY) Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison:
As a diverse group of organizations and companies dedicated to
reducing highway fatalities caused by drunk driving and other factors,
we urge you to include the ROADS SAFE Act (Research of Alcohol
Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere--
HR 510), introduced by Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bob Corker, in the
NHTSA Transportation Reauthorization bill.
This legislation would authorize the transfer of currently unused
safety funds at a rate of $12 million annually for 5 years to support
and expand the ongoing DADSS (Driver Alcohol Detection System for
Safety) research program currently being undertaken by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and leading automakers.
The goal of this research program is to develop a publicly-
supported technology for vehicles that will instantaneously and
passively detect if a driver is drunk (above the legal limit of .08
BAC) and prevent the vehicle from starting. The technology must be
extremely accurate, inexpensive and a non-invasive optional safety
feature.
Despite Americans driving nearly 21 billion more miles last year,
U.S. highway traffic fatalities dropped 3 percent from 2009 to the
lowest levels in recorded history. To maintain this low rate,
particularly as the economy starts to recover and highway travel
increases further, we need to be diligent in pursuing opportunities
that have the potential to be very effective. If the DADSS research
program is successful, more than 8,000 lives can be saved each year, a
major step toward eliminating drunk driving (which costs taxpayers $130
billion each year).
Again, we ask that you include this important life-saving measure
in the traffic safety reauthorization legislation that is developed by
your Committee.
Sincerely,
AAA
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Allstate Insurance
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
American Highway Users Alliance (AHUA)
American International Automobile Dealers Association
(AIADA)
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Association of Global Automakers, Inc.
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS)
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers (NAMAD)
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA)
National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS)
National Safety Council (NSC)
Nationwide Insurance
Safe Kids USA
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
The Century Council
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA)
Ms. Nason. Thank you. I just want to thank you all for--
particularly for including the funding for the DADSS Act, the
Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. I know
Administrator Strickland spoke about that in his testimony, and
I was so pleased to hear him say that this is reality. This
technology actually can exist with funding and time.
He noted that it was the 5-year anniversary, which would
put it squarely within my tenure. And I can tell you having
been there, that it was shoulder to the wheel all the way. The
intellectual property rights discussions alone nearly destroyed
this language several times, but we got it together and now we
have a model, and so I really strongly urge the Committee to
firewall this provision as you move forward and protect it as
this process moves forward.
And I also noted in my testimony that NHTSA is an
organization that might benefit from and ombudsman. And that
may seen to come out of left field, but having served as the
Assistant Secretary of Government Affairs for several years at
the Department and then the NHTSA administrator. And then
having watched the Toyota hearings from the cheap seats in
Connecticut where I now live, I observed how much anger there
was at this very small agency. And most of what I read and what
I saw on the web, and what I followed on the blogs, and what I
heard at the hearings related to people feeling frustrated that
no one was getting back to them.
And I know, having been on the inside, that the defect
investigations team worked very, very hard on a variety of
issues. On any given day, it is car seats and boat trailers and
motorcycle brakes. But in this age of instant communication,
people feel like someone should write back very quickly to say,
we got your e-mail or your letter, and we're working on it.
There doesn't seem to be anybody filling that role.
And when I started in Government, I was the Assistant
Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, and on my first day
they put me in a room with another political appointee, not a
Senate-confirmed, a non-career SES, And he said, ``I'm the
trade ombudsman.'' And it was because the Customs Service had
so much interaction with the public that they felt like they
needed to have an ombudsman there to respond to those kind of
inquiries.
Now, you see one at the IRS, and I think that--I hope the
Committee will consider creating a role for someone to respond
to the public more quickly. They do get back to them, but
getting a letter out of the Government takes time. Even
quickly, it's still a matter of weeks and people expect that
someone is going to back to them more quickly than that. So, I
have put it out there for discussion and I hope the Committee
will raise the issue with others, who might have thoughts on
it, to see if this is a place where there could be some benefit
to both the agency and the public.
And I thank you for your time in allowing me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nason follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nicole Mason,
Former National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator
Chairman Pryor, Senator Toomey, members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
As a former NHTSA Administrator and current National Board Member
of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I commend the Committee for including
funding for advanced alcohol detection technology in the draft
legislation. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)
program is a result of a cooperative research agreement between NHTSA
and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which is composed of
the world's leading auto manufacturers. This work is critical, as 2009
fatality numbers make clear: 10,839 people were killed in drunk driving
crashes.The technology to prevent drunk driving crashes already exists
in an imperfect form, but with funding to perfect it, we can prevent
nearly a third of all fatalities on our roads. Just last week, over
twenty diverse organizations sent a letter to Congress in support of
DADSS. I have included this letter with my testimony and ask that it be
made a part of the hearing record.
There are numerous other important sections in the draft bill,
including Section 109, requiring at least three DUI or seat belt high
visibility enforcement campaigns annually. These campaigns are crucial
to spreading the word that drunk drivers will be caught and prosecuted.
The national Click It or Ticket campaign is one of the most successful
highway safety programs of all time and serves as a model for other
highway safety endeavors. Additionally, I commend the Committee for
including incentive grants for states to pass an all offender ignition
interlock program. Since MADD began the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk
Driving, 15 states have passed such laws.
As safety research dollars are so precious, I would also encourage
the Committee to carefully consider how each section of the draft
legislation may impact available safety resource funding. In a 2009
opinion piece in the Detroit News, I expressed concern about future
funding for safety while automakers were pressed to develop advanced
technologies for fuel economy. I noted, ``[w]hen resources are
constrained, something must give. Policymakers must understand these
trade-offs and recognize the choices they might be compelling.'' I
believe this is still true. At a time when R&D funding is scarce,
provisions that seem small could ultimately result in millions of
dollars being diverted from larger safety needs in the areas of
research or staffing.
Finally, a new staff-related proposal I hope the Committee will
consider is the creation of a senior NHTSA Ombudsman. After the Toyota
hearings last year, it has become clear that many consumers feel
frustrated with their inability to get a quick response from the NHTSA.
As the former Administrator, I know the agency tries to respond to as
many inquiries and complaints as possible, however, that process can
take several weeks or longer. A senior Ombudsman role would both
alleviate the pressure on the defects investigators to respond to
numerous inquiries, and provide the public with a clear outlet for
their requests. Many other Departments and agencies have an Ombudsman,
and I believe NHTSA could benefit from having a person directly
responsible for communicating with the public.
Thank you again for inviting me to appear today and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Strassburger?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBURGER, VICE PRESIDENT, VEHICLE
SAFETY AND HARMONIZATION, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
(ALLIANCE)
Mr. Strassburger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we have already this afternoon, the rate of fatalities
in 2010 fell to their lowest level since 1949 despite a
significant increase in the number of miles driven last year.
We are seeing a sustained decline in fatalities because of the
efforts begun over a decade ago by this Committee, your House
counterparts, NHTSA, automakers and our other safety partners
to prioritize our efforts and focus on the biggest problems in
traffic safety such as unbelted motorists, drunk drivers, and
protecting our children. We know what works, strong laws,
visibility enforced, education about those laws and the risks
associated with certain driving behaviors.
For our part, automakers are waging a safety technology
revolution, conceiving, developing, and implementing new safety
systems with real world benefits. But in an era of dwindling
resources, we have a difficult task ahead if we are to ensure
continued progress.
As this Committee moves forward, we urge you to focus on
those provisions that will provide the greatest safety benefits
while existing demands to adopt provisions that do not provide
benefits.
The Alliance has the following recommendations: if we are
to fully realize the benefits of vehicle safety technologies,
we must address drivers' most dangerous behaviors. Thirty-two
percent of those killed last year died because of a drunk
driver. The Alliance supports adoption of Sections 107 and 111
that support Government and industry efforts to reduce drunk
driving.
Over half of those killed last year were not wearing their
safety belts. Primary enforcement of safety belt use laws
results in higher usage rates, and that saves lives. After
nearly 30 years of trying to enact primary enforcement laws,
the time has come to treat safety belt use with the same
seriousness as drunk driving by withholding funding from states
that have failed to adopt a primary law in the same way
Congress required states to adopt 0.08 laws.
Further, the Alliance supports adoption of Section 109,
which provides funding for high-visibility enforcement of
safety belt use and drunk-driving laws.
The Alliance also supports adoption of Section 108, which
gives NHTSA and states additional tools to impact distracted
driving.
Finally, the Alliance supports the Committee's proposal to
give NHTSA authority to prevent fly-by-night companies from
selling defective products and failing to take responsibility
when those problems surface. The Alliance would like to work
with the Committee on Sections 309 through 311 to ensure that
these provisions are targeted at the bad actors.
Provisions that will not result in few traffic deaths and
should be dropped include Section 404, which would overturn the
well-established rules for early-warning reporting, even those
we heard just now from Administrator Strickland, that the rule
is working.
The EWR rule has already been subject to two rulemakings
and NHTSA's judgment has been upheld in court.
Other provisions deviate from NHTSA's recently published
priority plan and that should be dropped. These include Section
503 mandating pedal placement requirements and Section 506(c)
directing the agency to amend its existing EDR rule before it
is fully implemented.
The proposal to increase civil penalties for automakers and
suppliers by roughly 1,500 percent is out of proportion to the
current penalty structure for other manufacturers such as those
under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
The Alliance recommends deleting Section 303.
The Alliance's written testimony submitted for the record
describes our complete set of recommendations. Sustaining
progress made and reducing injuries and fatalities for motor
vehicle crashes is a significant public health challenge now
made even more difficult because of dwindling resources.
We appreciate the leadership shown by the members of this
Committee and we share your goals. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to make our roads the safest in the
world.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I would be happy to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strassburger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Vehicle
Safety and Harmonization, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members. My name is Robert
Strassburger and I am Vice President of Vehicle Safety and
Harmonization at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance).
The Alliance is a trade association of twelve car and light truck
manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor
Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and
Volvo. For Alliance members, who account for roughly three quarters of
all vehicles sold in the U.S. each year, safety is a top priority. The
Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Motor Vehicle
and Highway Safety Improvement Act discussion draft and we look forward
to working with the Committee as partners in enhancing motor vehicle
safety.
As this Committee considers the road ahead for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) it is important to bear in mind
the broader context of motor vehicle safety in the U.S. today.
Fatalities and serious injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes in
the U.S. are at their lowest level in 60 years. This fact is remarkable
given that during the same timeframe the number of licensed drivers has
more than doubled and annual vehicle miles travelled have more than
quadrupled.
This is because the government and the industry are doing many
things very well to innovate, develop, and implement effective safety
systems and programs. Most of the safety features on motor vehicles in
the U.S.--antilock brakes, stability control, side airbags for head and
chest protection, side curtains, pre-crash occupant positioning, lane
departure warning, collision avoidance and more--were developed and
implemented voluntarily by manufacturers, in advance of any regulatory
mandates. The industry is moving forward, engaging in high-tech
research, and developing and implementing new safety technologies
including autonomous braking systems, vehicle safety communications
systems for crash avoidance and much more. Our commitment is to
continuously improve motor vehicle safety.
Tackling the Primary Causes of Traffic Deaths and Injuries. As a
nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle
safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained
and drunk drivers off the road. While safety belt usage is increasing,
over half of vehicle occupants killed in crashes are not restrained by
safety belts or child safety seats. Alcohol impairment stubbornly
remains a factor in roughly one-third of traffic deaths each year.
These are unacceptable numbers.
The safety belt is the lynchpin vehicle safety technology. The
effectiveness of nearly every other technology designed to protect
occupants in a crash is significantly reduced if drivers and passengers
are not wearing seatbelts. While we have been reluctant to engage in
the debate over incentives versus sanctions, on this critical issue the
Alliance now urges Congress to include provisions for withholding a
percentage of Highway Trust Fund monies from states that have failed to
adopt primary enforcement safety belt laws. Sanctions have worked
effectively to accelerate the process of passing laws and creating
uniform safety policy in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.
Congress employed this tactic to encourage states to adopt a minimum
legal drinking age of 21 (1984), zero alcohol tolerance laws for youth
under 21 (1995), and 0.08 percent per se blood alcohol content (BAC)
laws (2000). It is time to take a similar step with primary enforcement
laws, and we urge you to work with your colleagues on the Environment
and Public Works Committee on this issue. The Alliance also supports
Section 302, which would authorize NHTSA to permit safety belt
interlocks as part of an FMVSS compliance strategy. The Alliance is
also prepared to support Section 603; however, it needs to be revised
to clarify what outcome is intended.
With regard to reducing impaired driving, the Alliance supports the
provisions in Section 107. The Alliance believes that states with
higher rates of alcohol-related fatalities (``low and mid-range''
states) should be required to devote some portion of funding to support
both media in support of high visibility enforcement efforts
(107(d)(2)(A)) and alcohol ignition interlock programs for convicted
offenders (107(d)(2)(D)). Strong laws, visibly enforced and alcohol
ignition interlock (breathalyzer) programs for convicted offenders are
proven models with demonstrated results in reducing drunk driving.
The Alliance also supports the provisions in Section 111, which
would formally authorize the cooperative research program the industry
voluntarily entered into and is jointly funding with NHTSA. The Driver
Alcohol Detection System for Safety, commonly referred to as ``DADSS,''
is a five-plus-year research effort created to develop in-vehicle
technology that will quickly and accurately measure a driver's blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) in a non-invasive manner. If the system
detects that a driver is drunk, the vehicle's starting capabilities are
disabled. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety projects that
successful implementation of this kind of technology has the potential
to prevent more than 8,000 deaths each year.
The Alliance supports Section 406, which would allow NHTSA to
include crash avoidance technologies in its New Car Assessment Rating
program, which provides valuable information to consumers about vehicle
safety features.
Finally, the Alliance supports giving NHTSA and the states tools
and funding to combat distracted driving. We want to work with the
Committee, as we have with NHTSA and the states, to ensure that new
laws do not unintentionally sweep in technologies intended to make
driving safer. The Alliance and our partners at the American Academy of
Orthopedic Surgeons have launched a multimedia campaign that highlights
the importance of driver focus to road safety. The high-visibility
campaign includes advertising, an interactive and independently branded
website and localized elements--including last year's advertising of
the campaign on dozens of metro buses in the Washington, D.C. area. And
our campaign is finalizing plans for reaching out to the Nation's
schools with a new element this fall.
Focusing Limited Resources to Achieve Real-World Benefits. Auto
engineers develop and test new safety technologies based on their
expected performance in real-world situations. Proposed legislation
needs to meet the same test. At a time when we are acutely aware of our
resource limitations, both industry and government need to prioritize
our efforts in order to maximize real-world safety benefits for
Americans.
In March 2011, NHTSA published an updated Vehicle Safety and Fuel
Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan for 2011-2013, reflecting
extensive analysis of traffic safety data and the agency's expert
judgment on the most effective means to continue to accomplish its
Congressionally mandated mission to ``save lives, prevent injuries and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes.'' Congress should
resist mandating widespread and far reaching rulemakings--with
relatively short deadlines that affect so many aspects of motor vehicle
design without greater evidence that they would make meaningful
contributions to improving highway and vehicle safety.
Our concern over legislatively-mandated rules is not over improving
safety--industry is competing vigorously and moving rapidly to provide
ever-increasing levels of safety in its vehicles--but over process.
Safety rulemakings are often complex, involving myriad of technical
details, analysis of data, and consideration of necessary lead time.
Mandates for rules to be issued by specified dates can short-circuit
the necessary analyses and potentially lead to unintended safety
consequences. The complexity of safety rulemakings requires that
careful attention be accorded to the inherent tradeoffs associated with
regulations. For example, we have seen tradeoffs among adult high-speed
protection in frontal crashes and associated harm to children and
others in low-speed crashes. Mandating rules in certain areas,
regardless of the public rulemaking record on the subject, prejudges
the outcome of the rulemaking process and deprives NHTSA of its ability
to make safety-related assessments and determinations of rulemaking
priorities.
Accordingly, the Alliance believes the following provisions should
be revised or removed on the basis that they inappropriately divert
resources from more pressing priorities:
Section 404. This section directs NHTSA to enter into a third
rulemaking to create new ``categories'' of information that must be
``made available to the public'' regardless of whether it includes
confidential business information, may cause competitive harm and is
inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The current
early warning reporting regulations do exactly what Congress intended,
by putting vital information in the hands of agency defect
investigators. Secretary LaHood and Administrator Strickland stated as
much in responses for the record to this Committee last year.\1\ This
issue has already been subject to two rulemakings and NHTSA's judgment
has been upheld in court. This provision should be dropped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``At this time, the agency believes the information reported by
manufacturers to NHTSA is useful for identifying potential safety
defects in the affected vehicles in the U.S. Since 2004, the first full
year in which NHTSA received EWR data, the Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) has used the EWR data to assist in our safety-
defect identification investigation process. NHTSA has utilized EWR
data to assist in opening 110 defect investigations, which resulted in
over 11 million recalled vehicles and equipment. Specifically, EWR data
has prompted the opening of 28 defect investigations, accelerated the
opening of 30 defect investigations, and supported the opening of 52
other defect investigations.'' (Response of Secretary LaHood and
Administrator Strickland to question number 4 from Sen. Hutchison for
hearing record--Toyota Recalls and Government's Response--March 2, 2010
pps. 177-178.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 401, 403, 407, and 402. The Alliance supports providing
consumers with access to information regarding recalls; however, these
provisions largely require NHTSA to duplicate existing resources.
Automakers and private entities such as CARFAX already provide
consumers the means to determine, using the make, model, model year and
VIN, whether a vehicle is subject to recall and whether the remedy has
been performed (401). Automakers already provide Technical Service
Bulletins and other dealer-related communications to NHTSA, which NHTSA
makes available on its safercar.gov website (403). Automakers are
already required by law to publish in Owner's Manuals information
regarding how to report a suspected defect (407). NHTSA already
maintains a hotline for reporting defects; the safety benefits of
maintaining a separate hotline for manufacturer, dealer or mechanics
are not apparent. If Congress believes NHTSA should give special weight
to these individuals' reports, they could simply be asked to specify
their profession when calling the existing hotline (402).
Section 503. The Alliance recommends deleting Section 503, which
would direct NHTSA to develop a rule specifying minimum clearances for
passenger vehicle foot pedals with respect to other pedals, the vehicle
floor, and any other potential obstruction to pedal movement. NHTSA
identified pedal placement as an area in need of further research
following the release of the NASA report on unintended acceleration.
The agency should be allowed to finish and evaluate its research before
a determination is made as to whether rulemaking is warranted.
Implementing brake override technology as required in Section 502 is a
better, more comprehensive solution to address any lingering concerns
about unintended acceleration.
Section 504. In February, NHTSA released the complete results of
the study it conducted with NASA concluding that electronic systems
played no role in cases of unintended acceleration.\2\ While the
Alliance is not opposed to NHTSA expanding its expertise and continuing
research into electronic systems, this undefined rulemaking is unlikely
to have any significant near-term impact on motor vehicle safety. The
agency's rulemaking resources should be devoted to addressing more
pressing issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``NASA found no evidence that a malfunction in electronics
caused large unintended accelerations.'' Michael Kirsch, Principal
Engineer at the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC)--NHTSA Press
Release of February 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 506. The Alliance supports equipping new vehicles with
event data recorders (EDR) as currently specified under Part 563.
Manufacturers who opted not to install EDRs under the voluntary
standard will need sufficient lead time to develop and implement this
technology in their fleets. NHTSA should have the authority to
establish the lead time, including any phase-in schedule, after
consultation with the manufacturers.
The Alliance also supports strong privacy protections for
consumers. The Alliance believes that information stored on an EDR is
the property of the vehicle owner and should not be accessed by anyone
without the owner's permission or as required by law. In this regard
the provisions in 506(b) are a good start but require additional
clarification to ensure data is the property of the owner or lessee at
the time it was recorded rather than at the time it was downloaded from
the vehicle EDR, and to specify that use of data retrieved under one of
the exemptions in (b)(2) is permitted only for the specific purpose
indicated by the exemption.
The Alliance also believes that it is premature for Congress to
specify the parameters of a second rulemaking before the first
rulemaking is even implemented. The better approach would be to allow
NHTSA to study the results of the first phase rulemaking as a prologue
to any future enhancements to the rule.
Additionally, the Alliance opposes making EDRs subject to an FMVSS.
The FMVSS are required by statute to be minimum standards for motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. By contrast, the EDR
rule is--by necessity and design--a regulation that specifies exactly
that data that NHTSA wishes to be captured and retained. It is neither
a minimum standard nor a performance standard, nor could it reasonably
be such a standard and accomplish its intended purpose. It is not
appropriately classified as an FMVSS, nor are the FMVSS enforcement
mechanisms (stop sale for even slight deviations) appropriate for such
a data- intensive, detailed regulation.
Section 604. Mandating a rulemaking to address hyper and
hypothermia is inconsistent with the provision in Title I giving states
the option (rather than requiring them) to conduct a consumer education
program in these areas. Accidental fatalities can be mitigated
significantly with a coordinated, focused public education program. The
provision's directive to conduct research recognizes that the reasons
why children are abandoned in cars in some instances is not well
understood and without such an understanding, it is not possible to
evaluate the anticipated effectiveness of potential countermeasures.
Finally, the provision as currently drafted would not allow the
bifurcation of hyper and hypothermia rulemakings based on research
findings based on safety need, practicability, or effectiveness of
countermeasures.
Finally, the Alliance believes that several other provisions
deserve additional consideration as the bill moves through the
legislative process:
Section 303. Motor vehicle manufacturers are already subject to
higher civil penalties than other similarly situated manufacturers of
consumer products. The proposed increases are so out of proportion
either to the current penalty structure or the penalty structure for
other manufacturers under the Consumer Product Safety Act as to appear
unfairly punitive.
Section 405. This provision reaffirms existing law codified at 18
USC 1001 and adds an additional civil penalty to existing criminal
penalties. Layering additional civil fines on top of potential criminal
penalties for making false statements to the government is unlikely to
enhance motor vehicle safety.
Sections 308, 309, 310, and 311. The Alliance supports what we
understand to be the Committee's rationale in proposing these
provisions: to give NHTSA authority to prevent fly-by-night actors from
injecting defective products into the U.S. market and failing to take
responsibility when problems surface. However, as currently structured,
these provisions are simply layered on top of existing rules for
established, well-capitalized manufacturers and suppliers who already
play by the rules. As such these sections will result in additional
burdens that increase the cost of doing business for responsible
parties without providing concomitant safety benefits in the market.
The Alliance believes the better approach would be to direct these
provisions specifically at the bad actors, and we would like to work
with the Committee and the agency to identify an appropriate approach.
Many of the provisions also create discriminatory conditions and may
not be consistent with U.S. GATT obligations.
Senator Pryor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Betkey?
STATEMENT OF VERNON BETKEY, CHAIRMAN,
GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Betkey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee; I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
testify. And I'm here today representing Governors Highway
Safety Association and states who administer the Federal
Highway Safety Grant programs. And I also serve as the Director
of the Maryland Highway Safety Office.
In general, the association is very supportive of the two-
year proposal and has some suggestions that are largely of a
technical nature.
Let me just summarize some of the things that we noted and
support in the bill. Now, we support making the behavioral
grant programs more performance based, and we have heard
several comments today about the performance-based system. And
we've been working with NHTSA for some time now, going back as
far as 2008, on two sets of performance measures the states are
currently using or will use in their plans--in their future
highway safety plans.
And I want to compliment Mr. Strickland for helping us to
continue to foster that relationship with NHTSA in making those
adjustments to the performance plan.
GHSA supports the proposed changes to the 402 Program
including the performance-based planning, the earmarks for
training and research, the two new assurances, one having a
data-driven program, which personally, I think, is an extremely
beneficial ingredient to helping us move the numbers. And the
other being a coordination of the Highway Safety Plan with the
data collection and information systems in coordination with
the state's strategic highway safety plans.
Now, we are supportive of the language that allows states
to conduct programs in conjunction with neighboring States, and
we are extremely supportive of the efforts to streamline grant
applications and deadlines. This will be extremely beneficial
to the states.
Now, we do recommend some streamlining the maintenance of
effort requirements and would welcome a discussion with the
Committee on that.
With respect to NHTSA'S Research and Demonstration Program,
we are supportive of many of the proposed changes. We would
like to talk a little bit more about the earmark of the
medically impaired driver data base. GHSA supports the
consolidation of the three occupant protection programs into a
single one, but we would urge the Committee to consider that it
be funded at a proportionately higher level.
GHSA supports the conversion of the Impaired Driving Grant
Program into a performance-based formula that will ensure every
State has resources as needed.
And we also support the dedicated funding for states for
the Ignition Interlock Program. We, too, agree that there is
evidence from New Mexico in their Ignition Interlock Program
that shows great potential for how this could work on a
national basis. And we strongly encourage that ignition
interlocks be used as the technology and funded accordingly.
But we also support the authorization of funding for
continued research on advanced impaired driving.
And we have heard several comments today about impaired
driving and occupant protection and belt use, and we should
consider that if we can eliminate drunk driving and we could
get 100 percent belt use, we could cut the Nation's fatalities
in half.
But GHSA supports the Distracted Driving Program, but it
worries that the requirements of the program may be too
stringent as written. It's a multi-million dollar program and
we feel that a few states would qualify on the initial go round
and we would suggest that the Committee consider looking into
the number of states that would qualify in the beginning, and
maybe make some adjustments to those criteria.
We're somewhat disappointed that the Committee did not make
the changes to the Section 211, Motorcycle Safety Program. The
program as it is now is very narrowly focused, and it is
somewhat frustrating for the States. The funds cannot be used
for impaired motorcycling, improvements to licensing, programs
to reduce motorcycle speeding or even support motorcycle safety
summits or the development of strategic motorcycle safety
plans. We certainly understand the dynamics of this, and we
would ask the Committee to consider making it a broader, more
comprehensive program.
In closing, just a couple of other items. We definitely
support the high-visibility enforcement provisions, the Section
408 Data Improvement Program, and the agency's accountability
provisions.
Again, GHSA and NHTSA have worked very closely together in
a partnership to help in those accountabilities.
That concludes my testimony, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Betkey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vernon Betkey, Chairman,
Governors Highway Safety Association
Introduction
Good morning. My name is Vernon Betkey, and I am Chairman of the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the Director of the
Maryland Highway Safety Office. GHSA is a nonprofit association that
represents state highway safety agencies. Its State Highway Safety
Office (SHSO) members administer the Federal behavioral highway safety
grant programs under Title II of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Areas of focus include: impaired driving; inadequate occupant
protection; speeding and aggressive driving; distracted driving;
younger and older drivers; bicycle, motorcycle and pedestrian safety;
traffic records and highway safety workforce development.
General Comments
The Governors Highway Safety Association has had the opportunity to
review the draft two-year reauthorization legislation and is pleased to
submit comments on Title II of the proposal. In general, the
Association is supportive of the Senate Commerce Committee's draft. It
attempts to consolidate some behavioral highway safety grant programs
and streamline the grant application process. The proposal places a
high degree of importance on performance and the use of performance
measures to set targets and measure progress toward those targets. It
grants states somewhat more flexibility (particularly in the Section
410 impaired driving program) if they achieve specified levels of
performance.
Members of the Committee may know that GHSA has been working
cooperatively with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) since 2008 to develop two sets of performance measures. The
first is a set of 14 outcome and activity measures that states have
been using in their Highway Safety Plans for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012. A
fifteenth measure concerning changes in attitude and awareness was
subsequently added, and states are using this measure with their FY
2012 plans.
In addition, GHSA and NHTSA have identified 61 performance measures
that states can use with their six core state traffic records systems
(Crash, Injury, Vehicle, Driver, Citation & Adjudication and Roadway).
The measures address accuracy, timeliness, completeness, uniformity,
integration and accessibility of the data in each of the six systems.
The final report on these measures was published earlier this year, and
states will begin using these measures with their FY 2013 Section 408
data improvement grant applications and plans.
GHSA is currently working with NTHSA to improve the collection of
serious injury data in the short term while the Agency develops and
implements long-term improvements that require new data bases and data
linkage. The short term recommendations for improving serious injury
data will be published as part of the updated Model Minimum Uniform
Crash Criteria (MMUCC) early next year.
In effect, and GHSA is proud to say, the emphasis on setting
performance goals and measuring performance is one that State Highway
Safety Offices have already vigorously embraced.
Section 402 Highway Safety Program
As you know, the Section 402 program is the backbone of every
state's behavioral highway safety program. In our view, the program has
worked well and needs few changes.
GHSA supports the requirement that states use specific performance
measures to report on current safety levels and set targets. As noted
above, GHSA members are already doing that in their annual Highway
Safety Plans and Annual Reports.
In GHSA's reauthorization position statement published in 2009 and
found on GHSA's website, www.ghsa.org, we recognized the need for
additional highway safety research and training for Federal, state and
local safety personnel. The Association is accepting of the 402
earmarks for those purposes. In addition, we support the two new
assurances proposed in the legislation. However, the Association
recommends, that subjective terms such as ``robust'' (as in a robust
data-driven enforcement program) are not good indicators of what
performance will be specifically required of states and should be
eliminated.
The Association supports the proposed language allowing states to
use their 402 funds in conjunction with those of neighboring states.
States can achieve economies of scale by working enforcement, data or
educational programs on a bilateral or regional basis. GHSA also
supports the language that would allow NHTSA to promote highway and
vehicle safety with states legislators. The Association urges the
Committee to extend the same privileges to the state recipients of 402
funds. It makes little sense to encourage states to improve their
performance by enacting certain safety laws (such as primary seat belt
laws), but then prohibit them from working with their state legislators
on those laws.
GHSA also strenuously supports the single grant application and
deadline requirement. This should help states plan their programs with
more certainty and smooth out the flow of funds to the states.
The Association is disappointed that the Committee did not address
the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement in the 402 and other grant
programs. The MOE requires the states to collect information from
jurisdictions all over the state regardless of whether or not they were
federally funded. It is a very burdensome, labor intensive requirement
and an increasingly difficult one for states in these tight economic
times. We urge the Committee to streamline the requirement and/or
authorize a waiver process for states that can demonstrate economic
hardship.
We are perplexed by the requirement to sanction states for their
inadequate 402 program and to penalize them for their inadequate 402
plan. The 402 plan is the same as the state's 402 program. It details
how the state will spend 402 funds to reach performance goals. That
begs the question: Under what circumstances would a state ever have an
inadequate program if it has an acceptable plan? If a state has an
unacceptable plan, the state has the opportunity to redo its plan. If
it still has an unacceptable plan and the Secretary, in consultation
with the state, reprograms 402 funding, then the plan (and hence its
program) would become acceptable. By keeping both the sanctions and the
reprogramming penalties, a state is penalized twice for the same thing.
GHSA urges the Committee to reconsider this issue.
Section 403 Research and Development Program
In general, GHSA supports the proposed language for NHTSA's
research and development program. We are especially supportive of the
language authorizing an international highway safety program. According
to the World Health Organization, the United States--once a world
leader in highway safety--has slipped to ninth or tenth in the world.
Other countries--most notably Great Britain, France, the Netherlands,
Sweden, Australia and Canada--are leading the way with widespread use
of automated enforcement and BAC testing, primary belt laws and other
innovations. There are significant strategies and countermeasures that
the United States could learn from other countries, and an
international program would provide NHTSA the opportunity for the
exchange of information.
GHSA also strongly supports the legislative language that protects
from liability personal health information collected by NHTSA for
research purposes. Without such protection, NHTSA (and the states)
would have a very difficult time collecting public health data used for
a number of purposes, including the determination of serious injury,
BAC testing results, medical fitness to drive, etc.
GHSA also supports bestowing NHTSA with the authority to set model
specifications for certain devices (such as ignition interlocks) and to
establish a Conforming Products List. Currently, NHTSA does this on an
ad hoc basis. Such an official list would make it easier for states to
purchase equipment that meets the specifications set by the Agency.
GHSA questions why $1.28 million is being earmarked to create a
clearinghouse and technical assistance for medical fitness to drive. Is
such a clearinghouse necessary? Why should Federal funding be spent for
this purpose and not for some other research-related purpose? The
amount of Federal funding that NHTSA receives under the Section 403
program is very limited. NHTSA should justify that this earmark is the
highest and best use of its limited research dollars.
Section 405 Combined Occupant Protection Program
GHSA supports the combination of the Section 405, portions of the
406 and the 2011 programs into a single occupant protection program.
The requirements to develop an occupant protection plan, including a
plan for child passenger safety specialists, will encourage a more
strategic approach to occupant protection. The Association suggests
that the list of eligible activities should be broadened to include
sustained enforcement of adult and child occupant protection laws as
well as educational programs to encourage the use of seat belts and
warn adults about the dangers of not using seat belts.
Under the Administration's proposal, the combined occupant
protection program was funded at a relatively low level, especially
compared to other programs. GHSA urges that the Commerce Committee to
consider making the occupant protection program a higher priority and
funding it at higher levels. Strategies to encourage seat belt use are
among the most effective countermeasures that states can employ. Strong
laws and high visibility enforcement are the cornerstone to higher seat
belt use. Without substantial funding, states will not have the ability
to adequately participate in the national high visibility enforcement
campaigns, encourage sustained enforcement or support child passenger
safety programs.
Section 408 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements
Program
GHSA supports the proposed changes in the Section 408 program. As
noted above, GHSA has worked with NHTSA to identify traffic records
performance measures that states will use in their FY 2013 plans.
It is important to note, however, that upgrading traffic records
information systems will have a huge price tag, and the current 408
program funding has been woefully insufficient. (Currently, states
receive allocations of between $300,000 and $500,000 to make system
improvements that can cost in the millions.) GHSA encourages the
Committee ensure that funding investments reflect the need when there
is a longer-term reauthorization in the future.
Section 410 Impaired Driving Countermeasure Program
GHSA supports the reconfiguration of the Section 410 program. The
current program is overly complex, too stringent (e.g., the BAC testing
requirement) and focuses on issues (e.g., the self-sufficiency
requirement) that are not central to the reduction of impaired driving
crashes, fatalities and injuries. The proposed program would allocate
impaired driving funds to every state so that they can continue to make
impaired driving a central part of their state highway safety effort.
GHSA also supports the revised program because it would encourage a
more strategic approach to impaired driving. Further, GHSA supports the
dedicated funding for ignition interlocks, since widespread deployment
of interlocks has the potential to dramatically reduce impaired
driving.
GHSA recommends that the list of eligible activities should be
expanded to include sustained enforcement and impaired motorcycling
programs.
We also suggest that the Committee reconsider its requirement that
states must have a full-time impaired driving coordinator. Such a
requirement is not problematic for large or medium-sized states, but it
is for small states. In Maine, for example, the highway safety office
has seven employees including the director, a secretary, a contract Law
Enforcement Liaison, a grant specialist who handles contracting and
procurement and three program staff. The three program staff split
responsibilities and oversee grants for impaired driving, occupant
protection, law enforcement challenges, speeding, motorcycle safety,
traffic records and other state safety issues. Requiring a full-time
(rather than a part-time) coordinator would mean that the remaining two
program staff would have to cover all other issues and would make it
even more difficult for the small staff to fulfill all of their
responsibilities. Maine's experiences are not atypical for small
states.
Section 411 Distracted Driving Grants
GHSA supports the proposed distracted driving incentive program
since this is an emerging issue that appears to be growing
exponentially. We support the focus on texting and on young drivers
since that is supported by some current research. We also appreciate
the fact that eligible states would have some flexibility in the use of
the incentive funds.
However, we are puzzled by the language that requires ``increased
civil and criminal penalties than would otherwise apply'' if the crash
is caused by a driver texting or novice driver. Is this intended for
all crash involving distraction even if there is only property damage?
It would make more sense to require additional penalties only in the
most severe cases such as those involving a fatality or serious injury.
Further, GHSA is concerned that the requirements may be too
stringent and that few, if any, states will qualify. The Association
recommends that the Committee request NHTSA to analyze state
distraction laws and determine which states would currently qualify and
which would not. If our concern is merited, then the Committee may wish
to consider minor modifications that would ease program eligibility.
Section 2009 High Visibility Enforcement Program
GHSA supports the requirement that NHTSA conduct three high
visibility media efforts. This means that states will also be required
to conduct three high visibility enforcement campaigns, as they
currently do. Most states would find it extremely difficult to conduct
additional campaigns. Some states are having difficulty attracting law
enforcement personnel to the current enforcement efforts. Others have
reduced state staffs and are having difficulty managing the
mobilizations in their states. Still others have used up their
allotment of Section 406 funds and are facing sharp cutbacks in the
amount of funding available to conduct high visibility enforcement
mobilizations and other safety activities.
The only minor change that GHSA recommends is to explicitly allow
the impaired driving crackdown to address drug as well as alcohol-
impaired driving.
Section 2010 Motorcyclist Safety Program
GHSA is disappointed that the Committee did not consider major
changes to the Section 2010 Motorcyclist Safety Program.
Under the current program, states cannot use Section 2010 funds
for: impaired motorcycling programs; educational campaigns to alert
motorcyclists about the dangers of speeding and reckless riding;
campaigns to encourage greater conspicuity of the motorcycle or ride;
efforts to reduce the number of improperly licensed riders; analysis of
state motorcycle data or linkage of such data to other data bases; or
even support of motorcycle task forces and development of strategic
motorcycle safety plans. States cannot use the funding to encourage the
voluntary use of motorcycle helmets even though the use of helmets are
one of the most effective countermeasures a state can deploy. The
current program does not encourage a more comprehensive approach to
motorcycle safety but focuses very narrowly on improvements to
motorcycle training.
GHSA urges the Committee to reconsider this program and make it a
research-based, effective and comprehensive program to address
motorcyclist safety.
Section 111 Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Research
GHSA wants to lend our strong support for the in-vehicle research
provisions. They will allow government and the private sector to
continue the development of non-invasive advanced technology to detect
alcohol-impaired driving. GHSA believes that such technologies could
have the potential to significantly reduce the incidences of impaired
driving and would be well worth the modest investment called for in the
legislation.
Section 412 Agency Accountability
GHSA supports the proposed amendments to the Agency Accountability
provisions.
This concludes the testimony of the Governors Highway Safety
Association on the proposed two-year reauthorization provisions for
Federal behavioral highway safety grant programs. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on this significant piece
of highway safety legislation. I would be glad to answer any questions
and look forward to working with the Committee as the proposal moves
through the legislative process.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. I want to thank all of our
witnesses for testifying today.
Mr. Strassburger, I'd like to start with you. I must say
that I've just gone through a process where I bought my soon-
to-be 16-year-old used vehicle, and I was very impressed with
the options we had. And, you know, we're trying to get 5 star
safety ratings and looking at all that. We had lots of options
to choose from, so I think that the fleet that's here--not just
the U.S. automakers. Certainly, I'm pleased to see them really
improving in many ways, but also just the other options that
people have, which is great, and that's a credit to your
industry. But let me ask--you know, as a lawyer, they always
say do not ask a question you do not know the answer to, but
I'm going to ask you a question I don't know the answer to, but
I would like your thoughts on it, and that is the relationship
between more rigorous CAFE standards and safety. Is there a
tradeoff there? Are we seeing any diminishment in safety?
Mr. Strassburger. Yes, Senator, thank you. There is
absolutely a relationship between vehicle mass and size and its
crash performance. And the National Academy of Sciences back in
2002 quantified that the first round of CAFE rules that were
adopted in the mid-1970s probably were responsible for
approximately 2500 additional fatalities as a result of the
downsizing of the fleet that occurred at that time.
Since that time, the agency has restructured its CAFE rules
in an effort to try to mitigate and avoid any adverse
consequences that might come from increased CAFE requirements.
And so, as you know, we as an industry support a higher CAFE.
We have, I think, 160-some odd models that get 30 miles per
gallon or more--greater, and we're working both with the agency
and the Administration on future CAFE rules. And our interest
there is to make sure that we preserve jobs, affordability, but
also that we also are able to continue to improve motor vehicle
safety so that we can sustain the downward trend that we heard
Administrator Strickland testify just a few moments ago. It has
been ongoing now for 25 years. So, it remains a concern, but we
are mindful of it.
Senator Pryor. It seems to me that--I mean, from the
layman's perspective that you all are really doing a good job
in engineering, even the lighter vehicles, because if you look
at the crash worthiness, all the tests, not just the NHTSA
test, that's one set, but also the insurance industry and
others do test. And I must say I was impressed even with the,
you know, vehicles that get 35-40 miles a gallon that are
smaller vehicles, many of them, at least, seem to do very well
in the crash tests.
Mr. Strassburger. Yes. Thank you. It is very rewarding, I
think, for all the engineers that I represent that actually do
real engineering work. But new materials, new technologies, et
cetera, have certainly helped drive the fatality numbers down
and making cars safer, but one caution is, and that is this, as
we move forward, sufficient time to make those changes are
necessary. When we do use new materials, sometimes that means
new jointing, new welding techniques that change, stamping--new
stamping, forming plants are needed. New repair techniques are
need, and so as we move forward, if we have to do something
overnight, then we have only one option and that is to
downsize, and that is not good for safety. Given sufficient
time, sufficient lead time, I think we can do a very good job,
as you have observed.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Betkey, let me ask you from your standpoint, I have a
question about the graduated drivers licenses.
Mr. Betkey. Right.
Senator Pryor. And different states do different things,
but tell me your position on a national GDL standard, and maybe
even something like the STANDUP Act that some here have been
promoting?
Mr. Betkey. Well, we certainly support increasing the
conditions for the young drivers. If the STANDUP Act was passed
today, I think 49 out of the 50 states would not qualify for
any of the criteria that is in the Act. We definitely
understand the issues involving the young drivers, and we're
very supportive of trying to reduce those incidents, the
crashes that are incurred, and the better education and better
driving ability of our youngsters. I feel for you with your 16-
year-old.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Senator Toomey?
Senator Toomey. Thanks very much. I just have to mention
that Mr. Strassburger's observation that the number of
additional fatalities as a result of the previously established
CAFE standards could be 2,500. It is apparently a very damning
statistic, and a very disturbing one, it seems to me. That's a
big number. And it is my understanding that there is some
discussion of moving current CAFE standards to a benchmark as
high as 56 miles per gallon, now, not in the immediate future,
but in the reasonably near future. Are you concerned that this
will inevitably put pressure on manufacturers to lighten the
vehicle and diminish safety?
Mr. Strassburger. Senator, just one point of clarification.
The 2,500 figure that I mentioned was associated with the CAFE
rules that were first enacted in 1975. So, since that time and
it's more recently, I would say--I do not remember exactly
when, but 2005-2006, the agency restructured its CAFE rules to
remove the incentive for downsizing. And so it is hoped, and
we're just in the process of implementing that now, that those
rules would hold safety harmless.
Now, with respect to the rules that are coming up, I think
it is the 2012 through 2016, and then the rules that--we
anticipate the agency will propose this coming September, one
of our focuses will be with that rulemaking, will we be able to
continue to hold safety harmless, so to speak? Will we be able
to continue to make improvements that drive the numbers down or
is the structure of the program or the performance requirements
such that they would drive changes too fast and force us to
downsize. And so it is something that we're watching. I can't
say at the moment without the details that I would be
concerned, but it is one that we're watching quite carefully.
Senator Toomey. I do have one other question, but, Ms.
Nason, did you have anything you wanted to add to this
question?
Ms. Nason. Well--thank you, Senator Toomey. I just--we very
carefully tried to follow the National Academy of Sciences
recommendation in 2005 when we were developing the new CAFE
standards, and I agree with Mr. Strassburger, it can be done.
You can increase CAFE without having a decrease on safety. It
needs to be done reasonably though, so I think that the time-
frame issue is probably one of the most critical.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And back to Mr. Strassburger for
a minute there. In your testimony, you indicated a concern
about the change in--that this draft legislation proposes
regarding the disclosure of early warning reporting, but you
didn't really elaborate on why you are concerned about that.
So, could you share with us the nature of your concern about
that?
Mr. Strassburger. Yes. The concern really comes--it is
probably a twofold concern. There is a concern that with the
release of the data--well, let me back up and say, the
information that is collected by the agency is raw, unverified
consumer complaints, et cetera. It does not indicate the
existence of a defect or a defect trend. Rather, it is data
that requires additional analysis and, hopefully, provides
higher-quality leads to true problems in the field so that the
agency is devoting its limited resources to those
investigations that are likely to be--lead to real problems and
recalls.
The concern is this, beyond the concern that we have about
releasing proprietary information that could be used by our
competitors, is that it would hamper or drive the agency--the
agency's defect investigation agenda would be driven from the
outside by those who want a particular investigation to be
conducted.
As we saw last year, as the agency indicated in its most
recent report, I think, or the NASA report, that publicity
drives more and more complaints and that could lead to, I
think, an unstable situation where if the agency's agenda is
driven from outside the organization.
Senator Toomey. Ms. Nason, you know, one of the things that
occurs to me as a layman, who has no expertise on this
whatsoever, but if you add this provision, it seems to me that
there is at least a danger that there would be somehow a
reduction in disclosure and reporting or somehow it could
become problematic because of all kinds of associated dangers
and, perhaps, liabilities on the part of manufacturers. As a
former administrator, do you have any concern about this
provision?
Ms. Nason. I do, Senator. I was not the administrator who
signed the rulemakings. I was the administrator during the
lawsuits, so I can tell you personally that there was a great
deal of thought that went into a balancing between what
information should be released and what information should be
protected and why. Really, the agency very carefully tried to
think through protecting personal privacy rights. Citizen A
sends a letter to company B. They should have some expectation
of privacy that it is not going to end up in the Government's
hands. The Government is going to give it out to other people,
and we really thought through those issues. And we thought
through the concern about a chilling effect on people who might
report.
And I think having seen this issue litigated and then
upheld by the Court of Appeals, I would urge the Committee to
think very carefully before treading in this area because it's
really been litigated and debated at length.
Senator Toomey. Thank you very much.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for your work on this bill. Like the Chairman, I have
a daughter who just turned 16, but because of the Minnesota
Government shutdown, she was unable to take her driver's test.
So there's been a big backlog in those tests. It may last all
summer from what I've heard or that's what I'm telling her.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. So, anyway--so I care a lot, as you all
know, about the issues of the teen driving, texting. But I
first want to start, Mr. Strassburger, with this topic of the
interlock devices. I know you endorse the idea of a grant
program for states that adopt ignition interlock devices to
discourage drunk driving. I believe this technology can be an
incredibly effective way to keep drunk drivers off the road. To
give you an example, Minnesota has this program, supported by
Governor Pawlenty, bipartisan support of our legislature. And
so these ignition interlocks have been available in Minnesota
since the start of the pilot program in 2009.
Of the 1,900 people that have one, only 4 people
reoffended. That's a recidivism rate of 2 percent. And so we
now have a full statewide program. And I know that there is
costs associated with maintaining these devices, and I just
wondered if there are any ideas for how to bring down the cost
and how this could work, Mr. Strassburger?
Mr. Strassburger. Yes. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I
actually don't represent the ignition interlock device
manufacturers, so I don't--I'm not fully conversant in the
cost, but what I will say is this: Is that typically those
costs are borne by the offender and not----
Senator Klobuchar. Correct.
Mr. Strassburger.--paid by the State. And in those
instances where the offender is unable to pay, it's often the
case where indigent funds are set up where those that qualify
would be able to draw some funds. And those indigent funds
are--obtain their funding from the ignition interlock device
manufacturers.
Senator Klobuchar. Uh-huh. And are you aware of how these
programs have been working across the country?
Mr. Strassburger. I'm not. I believe they are working, but
I can follow up for you with information for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
All fifty states have some sort of ignition interlock law. Research
shows alcohol ignition interlocks to be effective in reducing
recidivism among persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving, ranging
from 50 percent to 90 percent while the interlock is installed on the
vehicle.
Thirty nine states mandate the use of an ignition interlock by a
convicted offender. Fifteen states--Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington--have mandatory
ignition interlock provisions for all DUI convictions. Colorado's and
Illinois' laws are not mandatory for a first conviction, but there is a
strong incentive to install an interlock device on the first
conviction. In July 2010, California enacted legislation requiring a
five-year pilot program in the counties of Los Angeles, Alameda,
Sacramento, and Tulare.
An additional sixteen states--Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming--mandate the use of an ignition interlock by anyone convicted
of having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of between 0.15 and 0.17
percent (nominally two times the legal limit of 0.08 percent enacted in
all 50 states). Alternatively, seven states--Georgia, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina--mandate the
use of an ignition interlock for a second conviction.
In total, twenty states have devised ways to offset costs for
indigent offenders. Ten of the sixteen states that mandate the use of
an ignition interlock for all DUI convictions (including the California
Pilot Program) have established an indigent fund. An additional ten
states that mandate the use of an ignition interlock by anyone
convicted with a BAC of 0.15 percent or greater have also established
an Indigent fund. The eligibility requirements and funding mechanisms
for these funds vary by state. The attachment to this response provides
a state-by-state summary of existing ignition interlock laws for all
DUI convictions and for those convicted with BACs of 0.15 percent or
greater. In general, indigent funds are funded by fees paid by non-
indigent offenders or the ignition interlock service provider.
The state of New Mexico appears to be one of the first to have
established a fund for indigent offenders. That fund is funded from
fees imposed on the ignition interlock provider. Initially, the state
did not establish eligibility criteria for offenders to qualify to use
the fund and judges were certifying over one-third of offenders as
being indigent. The state has since adopted objective criteria for
eligibility. Thus, if states choose to make funds available to
indigents, it is recommended that objective criteria for eligibility be
developed to ensure fair access to those resources.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good. Thank you.
And I assume you are supportive of those efforts, Ms.
Nason?
Ms. Nason. Yes. As a MADD board member, we are very
enthusiastic to see that provision in the bill. And I can tell
you, since I have the numbers in front of me that the number of
ignition interlocks has more than doubled from 100,000 to
200,000 in use today. And New Mexico and Arizona have reduced
DUI fatalities by 36 and 46 percent, respectively, due in large
part to interlocks for all offenders. So, we're very pleased.
MADD was very pleased to see that.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Gillan, on the same day that J.C. Good graduated from
college in 2008, her car was struck by a tractor trailer that
had swerved to miss a teen driver running a red light because
he was distracted by his cell phone. J.C. survived, but her
parents died that night. And tragic stories like this one is
why it is so important, I believe, to aggressively combat
distracted driving.
So I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the draft of the Motor
Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act includes a grant
program that states that ban texting by all drivers and the use
of cell phones by novice drivers, provisions that I strongly
support. Do you think that this grant program could help spur
the adoption of State bans on texting while driving? And also,
second, when Congress passed legislation giving grants to
states that enforced seat belt laws, how quickly did states
respond and adopt, Click it or Ticket law? So I think it is an
example we can look at.
Ms. Gillan. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
Advocates supports incentive grant programs, but clearly the
optimal combination is incentive grants with sanctions. Every
time Congress has adopted a sanction such as the 21 drinking
age, on 0.08 BAC, and a zero tolerance law, the states within 3
or 4 years have all passed those laws. I mean, there is
absolutely no question about it that sanctions work. And every
time Congress has used a sanction, not a single State has lost
a single dollar of highway construction money. There isn't a
faster way to get the states to act in deference to others from
the states who don't want that approach.
I do think for texting bans as well as the ignition
interlock, as well as the STANDUP Act, which, thank you very
much for being a co-sponsor, that if we really want to
accelerate uniformity and get the states to do this, that we
need the incentive grants to encourage them, but I think at
some point we need the sanction in order to show that we're
really serious about it. And, as I said, I am quite confident
that with the sanction, the states will act.
As many of you in this room know, I have a sister who is a
State Senator in Montana. She has been a sponsor of the
graduated drivers licensing law, but has not been able to get a
strong one through. And she says to me all the time, ``Show me
a sanction; I'll show you a law.''
Because this Committee has jurisdiction over incentive
grants, we would really like to see that put in the bill and
work with the Environment and Public Works Committee to get the
sanctions.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you, and I'm out of time,
but I'll put some questions in writing about the graduated
license standards, as well, which I think would be helpful. So,
thank you.
Ms. Gillan. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing and taking a look at these important issues
of highway and vehicle safety. And I want to thank our
witnesses for their testimony today as well.
Ms. Fleming, in your testimony, you explained how some
State officials that you interviewed would prefer more
flexibility in using safety incentive grant funds. That's a
view that I share. I also believe that flexibility is what
states want.
And so I would like to ask Mr. Betkey and Ms. Nason, do you
think the states would be supportive of a proposal to allow
medium and high-range states in the Impaired Driving program to
use their 410 funds, perhaps with the approval of the
administrator, on activities that are not specifically listed
in the draft bill like the low-range states are allowed to do?
Mr. Betkey. Yes, I think so, Senator. And I believe that
the states would welcome the opportunity to use those in a more
flexible manner. And I think that would only add to the
reduction in the alcohol-involved crashes. It gives the states
an opportunity to look at a wider berth of issues and narrow
their countermeasures a little bit or expand those
countermeasures a little bit. The states always welcome the
flexibility to do that.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Nason. I think there is no question, Senator, that the
states always appreciate the opportunity for additional
flexibility. As a former administrator, I have to latch on to
your suggestion that the administrator be involved in approving
that funding. Unfortunately, in the past on occasion, money was
used, not in 410, but in other grants for less than valuable
data-driven solutions. The one example that is always floating
around NHTSA is the group that used money for bobble head
dolls. So, you want to make sure that it is being used for a
valuable purpose, and I think if the state has a legitimate
claim and use for the money, then, absolutely, that should be
an option.
Senator Thune. OK. Ms. Fleming, any comment on that--I
referenced your testimony?
Ms. Fleming. Yes, thank you. In our work, we obviously
heard from states that they appreciate flexibility. We support
that. We've had examples from states where they actually
received more money than they felt they needed for a particular
grant, and they would have preferred to use some of that money
for other activities that they felt would further their safety
goals.
I think the only caution I would have is that since NHTSA
is moving toward a performance-based system, that it is going
to be important for them to still make sure that the
overarching safety goals and the State goals are being adhered
to and that once those minimum thresholds are met, excess funds
could be used for other activities within the states' plans.
Senator Thune. Did any of you think that there were other
programs in the draft bill that could benefit from increased
flexibility?
Mr. Betkey. Well, we are always looking for flexibility.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Good. Good answer, by the way. What do you
think some of the benefits of allowing that to occur would be,
Mr. Betkey? I mean, just in terms of providing that local
flexibility?
Mr. Betkey. Well, it gives us an ability to expand the
countermeasures that we implement for a particular program.
When it is narrowly focused, we're limited. A good example
would be in the Motorcycle Safety Program. If we were given
some flexibility there to move some funds, I think we could
attack some of the larger problem areas that involve motorcycle
safety.
Senator Thune. OK. And I would say--I will direct this to
Ms. Fleming again. And Mr. Betkey mentioned in his testimony
that GHSA has concerns about the new 410 requirement that
states have to have a full-time impaired driving coordinator
because of the impact that it would have on smaller states,
much like my own, who have limited staff and resources. My
understanding is that the staffing requirements are being
considered in other programs--and it's been a hardship in the
past for South Dakota with the Safe Routes to School Program--
and I'm interested in knowing during your interviews did you
hear of other states that had the same concern?
Ms. Fleming. We have, but at the same time we also have
heard that having a champion in the state could really make a
difference in putting forth a program and addressing some of
the issues such as--with teen driving and distracted driving.
So, I think it is a balancing act.
Senator Pryor. Go ahead?
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I'd like to
submit for the record for the first panel if that's OK. I see
my time has expired. So, thank you all very much.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Senator Thune.
I have just a couple of follow-ups from earlier, but I want
to thank Senator Thune for being here and all of my colleagues
who are kind of, I guess, headed to the floor. I think we're
about to have a vote on the floor just any minute. So, let me
run through a few of these very quickly.
First, Ms. Fleming, are you in a position to look at
NHTSA's highway safety grants and evaluate which ones are the
most effective and which ones are not very effective?
Ms. Fleming. I think that NHTSA is in a position to do
that, quite frankly. I think that we are really pleased that
NHTSA, working with GHSA, has developed the core 14 performance
measures and the additional measures, and it is now going to
allow them to get a sense as to how things are working at the
State level and which areas they need to address. So, I think
we're very pleased to see that this approach is going to allow
them to have a more performance-based data-driven approach. The
data is currently available for the core 14 measures, so we're
not concerned about that. I think when you get into some of the
optional measures our work has found that the quality of data
really varies tremendously across the States, so that could
hinder the ability to really fully implement a performance-
based approach. But, absolutely, I think NHTSA and the states
are now in a better position to have a sense as to what's
working and how to prioritize using the data through efforts.
Senator Pryor. Well, that's great because we're going to
need that type of evaluation as we go through our continuing
tough budget years to come. So, thank you for your insights
there.
Ms. Nason, let me ask you, you became passionate in your
opening statement about the DADSS Act?
Ms. Nason. Yes.
Senator Pryor. And just for the Subcommittee's benefit,
could you tell us briefly how you envision that--I know the
technology may not be completely there, but it sounds like
we're close, but could you indicate for the Subcommittee how
you would envision that actually working and how that might be
deployed around the country?
Ms. Nason. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think most
importantly, the idea is to make a passive technology that
doesn't in any way hassle the sober driver. So, it needs to be
better than 6 Sigma reliable. It needs to be set at 0.08 and
then effectively, you could eliminate drunk driving by stopping
the drunk driver from having the vehicle start.
However, if I am home with my three children and everyone's
finally in the car and they have all of their equipment and all
of their backpacks and everyone has shoes on, and I go to start
the car and it says, oh, have you been drinking again?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Nason. I am going to bring that car right back to the
dealer and say, get this junky technology out of my car. So it
needs to be really better than 6 Sigma which is why it needs
more time. If--the technology in a very bulky comprehensive
form really exists right now, this is not being invented out of
whole cloth. You can test with a finger. You can test with
breath, but it needs to be flawless for the driver, otherwise,
the target demographic, a 41-year-old mother of 3 is not going
to want to purchase the technology if every few days the car
tells me I'm drunk and it won't let me get where I need to go.
So, that's why having a funding stream over the next 5 years is
so critical to this technology, but I would just remind the
Committee that it is still a third of all fatalities. Alcohol-
related deaths are still a third of all fatalities. And it was
39-40 percent when I was NHTSA administrator compared to, say,
seat belt use, which has gone from nothing to 85 percent. So
this has really been an incredible challenge for NHTSA and the
Department of Transportation and MADD, and we think that the
DADSS technology holds enormous promise.
Senator Pryor. Good.
Mr. Betkey, let me ask you from a State perspective about
safety grants programs that you all administer around the
country. Do you have a way to measure how effective they are
and what's working out there and what's not?
Mr. Betkey. Well, we developed the performance standards
that we talked about earlier with NHTSA, and they have been in
for the last couple of years now. They are uniform. To narrow
it down to the individual grant programs, I don't think we
have--we have that process in place, but from a more global
perspective, we have the base performance measures that we can
certainly share.
Senator Pryor. Well, listen, I will have some more
questions for the record, and I know that other Committee
Members will as well. In fact, I think Senator Thune has one
right now.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, just a quick follow-up in
responding to something that Ms. Nason said, and that is if we
need more time, then why are we doing an interlock grant
specific now? I mean----
Ms. Nason. As part of the campaign to eliminate drunk
driving, we had several pieces, media outreach, ignition
interlocks for all offenders, which is a technology that is
available right now.
And then the long-term technology would be equipment built
into your car as opposed to an interlock that can be attached
and detached for a drunk-driving offender that would be
available in a seamless invisible form. That is a technology
that is not ready for prime time right now. And when I say we
need a long-term funding stream, I mean for the advanced
technology, the advanced alcohol-detection systems, not for the
ignition interlocks.
Senator Thune. And, again, this comes back to the issue
that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the flexibility. But
interlocks are effective, but in my home, State of South
Dakota, our response to impaired driving has been a 24/7
monitoring program for the offender which ensures that alcohol
and drugs are not used. And it just strikes me that, you know,
Congress maybe should not be in the business of mandating a
one-size-fits-all solution. There is some of these programs
that have been designed by states that I think work very well--
it certainly does in our case--and having a sort of a niche
program that, you know, where you've got grant money available
specifically for that particular purpose might preclude funding
for some of these other things that are working with a high
level of effectiveness?
Ms. Nason. Yes, I agree, Senator Thune, that in some states
they have worked to reduce drunk-driving fatalities in other
ways that are extremely effective. NHTSA does the same thing
with seat belt grants. Some states have passed a primary belt
law; some states have exceptionally high belt use through
messaging and other means to encourage the use. And I think you
could see that same flexibility with 410, with alcohol links as
well.
Senator Thune. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Good. Thank you.
Well, listen--did you have something, Ms. Gillan?
Ms. Gillan. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add one thing
before the hearing closed. And there has been a lot of
discussion about early warning data and making it available.
And I just wanted to say on behalf of Advocates and other
consumer groups that I think one of the lessons of the Toyota
sudden acceleration--and this Committee held hours and hours of
oversight hearings in exploring that--is the fact that there
needs to be greater transparency and making that early warning
data available to the public. So, I just wanted to add that
we're very pleased that Administrator Strickland supports that.
We strongly endorse that provision, as well as increasing the
penalties. Without criminal penalties, we need to have civil
penalties that are set high enough that it will be a deterrent
to corporations to misbehave and mislead the agency on these
defects investigations.
Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Listen, I want to thank all of
you all for testifying today. I want to thank all my colleagues
for being here. We are going to leave the record open for 7
days. And the staff here will work with you all to get those
answers to you and back from you as quickly as possible.
Thank you for being here. And there is no other business
before the Subcommittee, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from South Dakota
Thank you, Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Toomey, for holding
this important hearing today on highway and vehicle safety. I would
like to also thank the witnesses for their testimony. Our nation's
highway system plays a critical role in the U.S. economy and ensuring
that they are a safe place to not only do business, but also for our
families is important.
Thankfully, the work of Congress, the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), the states, and other
stakeholders has led to a remarkable decline in traffic fatalities. In
fact, fatality rates have dropped to their lowest rate since 1949. Even
with these improvements there is always more work that can be done and
I appreciate the efforts of Senator Pryor and others in writing a draft
NHTSA Reauthorization.
There are many provisions in the bill that I think will improve
traffic and vehicle safety. Specifically, I believe in the
consolidation of the grant process to one application with one deadline
will be incredibly beneficial to states. For smaller states like my own
with limited staff and resources this change will ensure that they are
able to apply for many ofNHTSA's grants at once.
I do have some concerns with the bill particularly when it comes to
oversight and flexibility. While oversight and regulations are needed
for all Federal grant programs we must ensure that we are not placing
so many demands on the grant recipients that they cannot spend their
time focusing on what is most critically important: traffic and vehicle
safety. Additionally, we have to ensure that these grant programs are
not so limited that they inhibit innovation at the state level. I think
it is clear that all good ideas do not come from inside the beltway and
this reauthorization bill must also allow for new traffic and vehicle
safety ideas to come from those dealing with these issues daily.
I look forward to discussing these issues with the Administrator,
the rest of the witnesses, and this Committee as we work to reauthorize
NHTSA. However, while this reauthorization is needed I would urge the
Committee to resist the temptation to rush into a mark-up before the
bill can be fully vetted and concerns addressed even if other
Committees decide to mark-up other titles of the highway bill before
recess. None of these provisions will be able to move to the Senate
floor until the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is able to
find the estimated $12 billion necessary to pay for a highway bill over
the next 2 years and those discussions will not occur until solutions
to the debt crises are addressed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. The Click It Or Ticket and You Drink, You Drive, You
Lose campaigns, NHTSA's primary high-visibility enforcement efforts,
have proven successful at reducing unrestrained and impaired driving
fatalities. What challenges does NHTSA face to maximizing the
effectiveness of high-visibility enforcement efforts?
Answer. High visibility law enforcement programs continue to be
among the most effective strategies for changing dangerous motorist
behaviors, including drunk driving, unrestrained occupants and
distracted driving. The high visibility enforcement strategy utilizes a
combination of paid advertisements, news coverage and observable law
enforcement activity. In combination, these elements notify the
community that strict law enforcement is planned, display the
commitment of community leaders, and provide observable confirmation
that enforcement is actually taking place.
One key challenge to implementing high visibility enforcement
programs is maintaining Federal leadership and providing adequate
resources to support state and community implementation. Federal
leadership is needed to keep states and communities focused on high
visibility enforcement as an effective cornerstone of their drunk
driving, seat belt and distracted driving programs. Highlighting high
visibility law enforcement in eligibility and reporting requirements in
grant programs and coordinating national implementation periods would
help meet this challenge.
Another key challenge is maintaining and expanding where possible
state and local involvement in high visibility enforcement in the face
of tight budgets and increasing alternative demands on law enforcement
resources. The need for state and community resources can be addressed
by including high visibility enforcement programs as a central eligible
expenditure for funds administered under sections 402, 405, 410 and
411. Together these programs would provide more than $400 million per
year for use by states and communities for the support of high
visibility law enforcement programs and other safety countermeasures.
Question 2. With the budget concerns we have been facing, which
highway grant programs are considered most critical for NHTSA's safety
mission?
Answer. With leadership from the Senate Commerce Committee, NHTSA's
highway safety grant programs have evolved over time from the original
Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program, which
provides highway safety funding to the States through a formula, to a
series of discretionary grants that address the critical issues
affecting safety on the Nation's roadways.
The Department recommended consolidating the eight SAFETEA-LU
discretionary grant programs to six to ease administration of the
program for States as well as the Department. These include the
following grant programs:
Section 402--State and Community Highway Safety Grant
Program
Section 405--Consolidated Occupant Protection Grants (seat
belt use and child passenger protection)
Section 408--State Traffic Safety Information System Grants
(State data collection and analysis)
Section 410--Impaired Driving Countermeasures (32 percent of
all highway fatalities per year)
Section 2011--Motorcyclist Safety Grants (nearly 4,500
fatalities per year)
Distracted Driving Grants (over 5,400 fatalities per year)
In total, these grants would provide a comprehensive highway safety
system designed to provide data and analysis for identifying safety
problems in the States. In addition, these grants would provide
targeted grant funding to address these problems and implement
countermeasures with the greatest potential for improving safety.
Because of the integrated, mutually supportive nature of these
grants in providing a comprehensive approach to addressing the most
pressing State highway safety problems, it is difficult to select those
that are most critical. We look forward to working with the Committee
to establish safety and funding priorities as part of the
reauthorization process.
Question 3. In NHTSA's vehicle safety mission, what specific areas
or departments are the most critical and need the most funding in order
to maintain a strong safety standard for automobiles?
Answer. The President's budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
sets forth the Administration's views on the vehicle safety program's
most critical funding needs. All components of the vehicle safety
program--crash data, research, rulemaking, and enforcement--are
critical to the program's success. We need to ensure that funding
continues for our important baseline work, such as defects
investigations and compliance testing, collection and dissemination of
crash data, development and promulgation of new and revised safety
standards, and research to support our standards. Modernization of our
data systems is a key underpinning for these activities. In addition,
we need to stay ahead of the rapid movement toward safety-critical
electronic controls, alternative fuels/batteries, and crash avoidance
technologies. This requires additional money for research, training,
development of new data collection techniques, development of
appropriate standards, and focused enforcement efforts. As our FY 2012
budget makes clear, meeting these challenges will require not just
additional money for contract support but additional funding for
employees as well.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question. I know that NHTSA has done at least one study on the
safety standards of seatback performance and has stated that the weight
of the passenger when added to the weight of the seatback itself can
exceed the safety standard. But has NHTSA fully examined this issue to
learn more about the ramifications of relying on a standard that is
over 40 years old? Is the auto industry responding to concerns that
have been raised about seatback standards? Does Congress need to step
in to address the problem?
Answer. There has been significant debate and a lack of consensus
in the past about whether the rearward strength of seats should be
strengthened. The agency studied the strength of seats in the late
1990s in response to several rulemaking petitions. We determined that
the strength of seats is far greater than is required by the seat
standard (FMVSS No. 207). In 2004, NHTSA terminated the rulemaking
petitions related to upgrading FMVSS No. 207 because we concluded that
further study was needed to determine the relative merits of different
potential rulemaking approaches. The agency's resources and priorities
have not allowed additional study to take place.
Because rear impacts are a relatively small percentage of crashes
that are severe enough to cause moderate-to-severe injuries, there is
limited data available to assess the potential benefits of upgrading
the standard. Although there is anecdotal evidence that injuries to
children and others seated in the rear row of seats can be contributed
to collapsing front seats, our field data bases are not able to show
strong evidence of this.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. Given the high priority that mass reduction is
receiving in the 2017-2025 CAFE standards, which NHTSA indicates may
require a 15-30 percent mass reduction, can you provide me with an
update on NHTSA's plans to continue implementation of the 2007 NHTSA
Safety Roadmap for Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles?
Answer. NHTSA continues to follow up on the 2007 report, ``A Safety
Roadmap for Future Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles'' (PCIV).
NHTSA has an ongoing research project to investigate lightweighting
opportunities using advanced plastics and composite materials. NHTSA
has funded George Washington University (GW) to develop and document
component material test procedures and predictive engineering tools to
demonstrate the use of structural composites in a finite element model
for a full size pickup truck. GW has been working with several plastics
and composites suppliers to implement structural and non-structural
plastics components in the vehicle model. This research is ongoing, and
we expect to complete the research by the end of 2011.
In support of ongoing CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA is developing a fleet
simulation model to evaluate safety considerations and countermeasures
for future lightweight vehicles. We intend to incorporate the results
from the PCIV research program into the fleet simulation studies to
evaluate the PCIV safety performance against other lightweight vehicle
designs.
Question 2. Since implementation of the 2007 Roadmap would directly
support vehicle safety, as well as promote increased fuel economy, what
is the timeline and what are the key milestones for execution of the
NHTSA Safety Roadmap for Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles?
Answer. In August 2008, NHTSA conducted an experts workshop to
refine near-term safety research and development priorities in the 2007
Roadmap. This workshop defined the need to develop relevant testing
standards and refine predictive tools for materials and structural
characterization, multi-scale damage characterization, failure
predictions, and crash energy absorption of component and vehicle
structures.
Also in 2008, NHTSA sponsored a study by the University of Utah
entitled ``Crash Safety Assurance Strategies for Future Plastic and
Composite Intensive Vehicles (PCIV's).'' This report was published by
the Volpe Center in 2010. It identified outstanding safety issues and
research needs for future PCIVs in order to facilitate the deployment
of safe PCIV vehicles by 2020.
In 2009, NHTSA initiated research with the George Washington
University and the University of Dayton Research Institute for
fabricating, testing, and simulating crash performance of composite
materials for automotive safety applications. This research is ongoing,
and we expect to complete the research by the end of 2011.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. The impaired driving program section of the draft bill
allows low-range states to have some flexibility in the use of their
410 funds and they would not be limited to activities listed in the
bill. I think it is good to allow the states a chance to innovate. I
would like to see that flexibility also provided to medium and high-
range states, perhaps with the approval of the Secretary. If someone
outside the Beltway has a good idea let's not shut the door in their
face. Would you support such a change?
Answer. The draft Section 410 is designed to use flexibility in the
use of grant funds as an incentive and reward for State impaired
driving program performance. This approach ensures that States with the
most severe problems will use grant funds to focus on countermeasures
with the greatest proven safety potential. States with less severe
problems are allowed to select from a broader range of countermeasures,
and those with the lowest alcohol-impaired driving rates are permitted
to use grant funds for new and innovative programs that address
identified State problems. We believe that this approach balances the
need for innovation with the need to ensure progress among the States
with the most severe impaired driving problems.
Question 2. Another 410 draft provision I have concerns with is the
creation of a separate grant to states that have ignition interlock
laws. I wonder whether we should have such small niche programs with no
flexibility. While interlocks are effective, in my home state of South
Dakota our response to impaired driving has been a 24/7 monitoring
program of the offender which ensures that alcohol or drugs are not
used. It seems to me that Congress should not be in the business of
mandating one size fits all solutions. Do you see a requirement for
this niche program? If so, do you think expanding it to include other
successful programs, like 24/7, would actually allow for the overall
goal, a reduction in impaired drivers, to be achieved more easily in
other states?
Answer. The draft Section 410 includes a provision under which the
Secretary would make grants to States with mandatory ignition interlock
laws covering all impaired driving offenders. The amount of grant funds
allocated under this provision is not to exceed 15 percent of the total
Section 410 grant program. We believe that this incentive provision is
appropriate since the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices has
been well-established and about 35 States lack interlock laws that
apply to all impaired driving offenders.
NHTSA is also very interested in the 24/7 program and is impressed
by the reports of success from South Dakota. The 24/7 program shows
promise in addressing high-risk offenders although it has not yet been
demonstrated in a broad range of environments and applications. Because
the 24/7 program addresses a different impaired driving offender
population than an all-offender ignition interlock law, we believe that
interested States could pursue both programs. Funding to support all-
offender interlock laws would be available under Section 410 and
funding for 24/7 programs could be available through either Section 410
(eligible under the Low Range State provision) or through Section 402.
Question 3. I have concerns with very detailed requirements being
imposed as a condition of receiving grant funds. Given how specific
some of the requirements can be, and with there being some discretion
at NHTSA in interpreting and applying the conditions, I wonder whether
we should continue to operate on an ``all or nothing basis'' in terms
of states qualifying for program grants. Would you support a provision
that allowed you the ability to award partial grants to a state for
compliance that was ``substantial'' but not ``complete'' enough for
full compliance? Would such an approach help states that would not
qualify otherwise receive some of the much needed safety funds, or
would it result in NHTSA treating a close case as ``substantial'' but
not ``complete?''
Answer. Qualifying for a ``partial grant'' by ``substantial
compliance'' with grant eligibility requirements may lead to two
significant problems that could affect national highway safety program
progress and complicate program administration by the agency and
States.
First, grant eligibility criteria are often used as a means to
stretch current State program and statutory systems to greater
effectiveness by providing an incentive to enact new, more stringent or
effective laws or safety programs. Allowing ``partial grants'' for
``substantial compliance'' will serve to diminish safety progress as
grantees may set the bar lower for ``substantial compliance'' with
grant criteria rather than ``full compliance'' with the grant criteria.
Second, grant eligibility criteria seek to establish an objective
standard that States must meet in order to qualify for a grant. For
example, a State enacts and enforces legislation or meets certain
program coverage requirements that are specified in statute or
regulation. This allows for yes/no decisions regarding whether the law
or the program complies with the grant criteria. Providing a ``partial
grant'' for ``substantial compliance'' introduces an element of
uncertainty and judgment into the grant eligibility determination
process. States and the administrating agency may have different
perspectives on the meaning of ``substantial compliance.'' This can and
will lead to disputes about inconsistent or arbitrary grant decisions
when administering agencies make grant eligibility determinations based
on their judgment of whether a State has ``substantially complied''
with the grant criteria.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question. During today's hearing, you mentioned the overwhelming
success of the New York and Connecticut pilot programs in reducing
handheld cell phone use and texting. However, it was my understanding
that the actual goal of distracted driver programs is to reduce the
number of accidents. Is there any evidence that these pilot programs
reduced the number of auto accidents, injuries, or fatalities?
Answer. For this pilot program, NHTSA selected relatively small
cities, Syracuse, New York and Hartford, Connecticut, for the
demonstrations because program implementation can be closely monitored
and measured. However, a consequence of the limited population is the
relatively small number of serious crashes, and therefore a limited
opportunity to measure crash effects. For this reason, the findings
from the current distracted driving demonstration programs focus on
changes in driver cell phone use and texting and do not include crash
data, such as traffic injuries and fatalities. Our next step will be to
deploy a number of Statewide distracted driving demonstration programs
where crash results are more likely to be measurable.
Although crash outcome data is not yet available, we believe that
other information points to a positive effect from distracted driving
programs. Specifically, a number of studies indicate that driver cell
phone use increases crash risk. Other studies show that handheld cell
phone laws reduce observed cell phone use while driving. The New York
and Connecticut studies provide additional evidence that strong
enforcement of such laws further reduces cell phone use and texting by
drivers. We believe that these studies collectively indicate that the
reduction of cell phone use and texting by drivers is likely to impact
crash risk.
______
Response to Written Questions submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Hon. David L. Strickland
Question 1. Mr. Strickland, in your testimony in front of the
subcommittee you stated that the various sectors of the automotive
industry had a ``systemic'' problem in terms of their annual automotive
recall completion rates. However, at the time you did not have the
supporting data to corroborate that statement. Would you please supply
me with recall completion rate data for new car sales, used car sales,
automotive fleets, rental car companies and individual consumer
automobiles from the past 5 years?
Answer. As I mentioned at the hearing, NHTSA is conducting an Audit
Query to determine whether there is a systemic problem with the recall
completion rates for vehicles owned by rental car companies. The
average vehicle recall reaches a completion rate of about 70 percent
after the full six quarters for which manufacturers must report
completion data. Based on data received from the three largest domestic
manufacturers, we believe that there is a systemic problem with rental
car fleets. That data indicate that, at the one-year mark after the
announcement of a recall, about 67 percent of consumer-owned vehicles
have had the recall remedy performed on them. Comparable figures for
rental car companies were about 56 percent, with the larger rental car
companies having higher rates than smaller ones, but still lower
consumer-owned vehicles. Among the major companies, there is also a
range of completion rates, with the best company being essentially at
the same level as consumer-owned vehicles. The major rental car
companies generally contend that the manufacturers' data do not
accurately reflect the rental companies' completion rates, which they
claim to be higher, at least in some cases. However, the rental car
companies seem to have selected examples of specific recalls with
higher rates rather than providing data on all of the recalls on which
the manufacturers have supplied information.
We have also found that, while most of the major companies have
recently revised their policies with regard to renting recalled
vehicles, they still rely on their own assessments of risk--in some
cases based on consultation with the manufacturer--to determine whether
to rent such vehicles prior to repairs. For vehicles not repaired prior
to rental, we are not aware of any company that informs the customer of
the un-remedied defect or noncompliance. In short, while we think that
recent attention given to this subject has resulted in some
improvements, we believe that there is still a systemic problem with
the completion of recalls by rental companies and their disclosure of
pending recalls to customers.
Other than the data cited above concerning rental fleet vehicles,
we do not have data that are broken down in the categories you have
requested. Recalling manufacturers provide six quarterly reports after
the start of a recall campaign, identifying in aggregate numbers how
many vehicles have been remedied under the campaign. They do not report
these data under the categories requested and NHTSA does not have a way
of breaking the aggregate data into the categories you requested for
the last 5 years.
Question 2. How does the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration compile automotive recall completion rate data?
Answer. Manufacturers are required to provide six quarterly reports
starting from the quarter in which they launch the recall campaign.
Manufacturers provide the data in aggregate totals and under the
categories defined by regulation. (49 CFR 573.7) In essence,
manufacturers report the aggregate number of vehicles repaired (or
inspected and not requiring repair). NHTSA divides that number into the
total number of vehicles recalled in a campaign to determine the
completion rate for that recall. NHTSA is then able to gather the
respective completion rates on recall campaigns to ascertain average
completion rates.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Susan Fleming
Question 1. The number of motor vehicle related fatalities and
injuries are trending significantly downward. Do you believe that
overall NHTSA has done a good job? What other improvements would you
suggest?
Answer. Overall GAO is pleased with NHTSA's efforts, including
changes they have made in response to our recommendations.
Specifically, NHTSA has taken several steps to better oversee states'
management of federally funded safety grants and move toward a more
performance-based, data-driven grant structure. For example, NHTSA
improved its grant oversight by developing a tool--the corrective
action plan--to track states' implementation of management review
recommendations and encourage states to act on the agency's guidance.
Also, NHTSA--in collaboration with the Governor's Highway Safety
Association (GHSA)--developed two sets of performance measures to
assist states in developing and implementing traffic safety grant
programs, as well as to monitor and improve data in their traffic
record systems.
Our work indicates that NHTSA can do more in several areas. For
example, NHTSA can continue to move toward a more performance-based
approach by using the performance measures developed with GHSA to help
assess states' progress in making safety improvements. NHTSA can also
help states prioritize improvements to their traffic safety data
systems by continuing to address our recommendation to ensure that
traffic records assessments are complete and consistent.
Question 2. Do you know what NHTSA highway safety grants have shown
the most results and the best use of Federal dollars in improving
safety?
Answer. While we did not assess which of the highway safety grants
was the most effective, when we reviewed the grant programs in 2008 we
reported that state officials generally found the safety grant programs
help improve safety by funding activities and help address key safety
issues in their states, including safety belt use, child safety and
booster seat, impaired driving, motorcyclist safety, and traffic safety
information systems. At the same time, we noted that while NHTSA
planned to rely on performance measures to help determine the results
of these programs, NHTSA had not yet assessed the grant programs'
effectiveness because it had not yet developed sufficient performance
measures and the safety incentive grants had not been in place long
enough to evaluate trends.
We have also reported that linking grant funding with states'
progress in achieving goals--as tracked through performance measures--
could help improve accountability for Federal funds. However, criteria
for continuing to receive traffic safety incentive grants are generally
not tied to states' demonstrating safety improvements from the prior
year. NHTSA has worked with GHSA to develop performance measures to
help assist states in developing and implementing traffic safety
programs. Using broad performance measures has the potential to hold
states accountable for achieving results and can provide information on
what areas should be prioritized for improvement. The use of such
measures represents an important step toward a more performance-based
approach. In reauthorizing traffic safety grant programs, Congress will
be faced with deciding whether to move further toward a performance-
based, data-driven grant structure by linking a state's receipt of
grant funds to achieving progress toward safety goals.
Question 3. You issued a report in 2010 highlighting key components
of a graduated licensing program for teen drivers and noted that states
often vary in the extent to which they include such provisions. Why do
states have difficulty implementing teen driver laws and what can the
Federal Government do to assist them?
Answer. Officials reported several reasons for difficulty in
passing teen driver legislation, including: (1) concerns over
infringing upon individual's personal freedom; (2) concerns over
limiting teens from driving themselves or others to and from activities
such as school or work; and (3) challenges reaching consensus on
specific driving provisions. Our work also identified several
strategies that states can take to address these challenges, including:
(1) establishing a task force to act as a ``champion'' to improve a
state's ability to strengthen teen driver safety laws; (2) publicizing
teen driver crashes, which can create momentum to change state laws;
and (3) using data and research to convince key stakeholders, such as
legislators, to support pending legislation. One very important way
that NHTSA can help states determine whether it is appropriate to pass
new teen driver legislation is continuing to conduct research on the
optimum teen driver provisions to include state laws.
Question 4. What are some of the key challenges to the auto safety
recall process and how could they be addressed?
Answer. In our June 2011 report, we identified a number of
challenges that affect parts of the recall process, including: (1)
identifying and notifying vehicle owners of auto safety defects; (2)
motivating vehicle owners to comply with notification letters; (3)
providing better information to vehicle owners and the public; (4)
using existing data to improve completion rates; and (5) NHTSA's lack
of authority to notify potential used car buyers about outstanding
recalls.
We made several recommendations to NHTSA to address these
challenges based on our interviews with auto manufacturers, industry
stakeholders, and the consumer focus groups we convened. First, NHTSA
should modify its requirements for notification letters to include
additional information, such as the word ``urgent'' in large type to
obtain readers' attention and the vehicle owner's VIN number so that it
is clear that the letter pertains to the owner's current vehicle.
Second, NHTSA should create a VIN-searchable database on its website,
www.safercar.gov, so that vehicle owners and the public can search for
outstanding recalls that relate to their specific vehicles. We also
recommended that NHTSA make additional efforts to publicize the website
to vehicle owners and the public, as our focus groups indicated that
NHTSA's website was not well publicized. Third, NHTSA should develop a
plan to use the data it collects on recall campaigns to analyze
patterns or trends to determine the characteristics of successful
recalls. Finally, NHTSA should seek legislative authority to notify
potential used car buyers of recalls prior to sale. In particular, we
believe Section 411 of the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement
Act, as proposed in the draft legislation prior to the hearing, is a
good step toward preventing consumers from unknowingly putting their
lives at risk by purchasing a defective vehicle. Tying this provision
to the development of a VIN-searchable database available to the public
(as section 411 does) is a necessary step to ensure that used-car
dealerships have the information they need to determine if a vehicle
they possess has an outstanding recall to comply with this requirement.
The development of such a database will also help vehicle owners
themselves to identify outstanding recalls and improve safety for the
motoring public.
Question 5. Given the shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund, how
should Congress look to fund these highway grant programs?
Answer. The highway trust fund, as currently constructed, is not
sustainable. We have reported on other options to help manage the
solvency of the fund, including altering or supplementing existing
sources of revenue, applying user-pay mechanisms, such as congestion
pricing and tolls, and improving the performance of the existing
transportation infrastructure. However, each of these options has
different merits and challenges, and the selection of any option will
likely involve trade-offs among different policy goals.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Jacqueline S. Gillan
Question 1. What highway safety grants do you view as the most
critical to safety in our Nation's roadways? What suggestions do you
have in how we can improve these grants' effectiveness in safety?
Answer. Highway safety grants that are awarded to states that have
already enacted specific traffic safety laws and are used for education
and enforcement of those laws are the most effective expenditure of
resources. For example, seat belt use has been increasing since 1994,
and reached 85 percent in 2010 and has saved thousands of lives.\1\
Higher seat belt use rates are largely the result of passage of primary
enforcement seat belt laws in states that have been accompanied by high
profile enforcement measures such as the ``Click It or Ticket'' and
other enforcement campaigns to educate motorists about the safety and
legal importance of buckling up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety
Facts: Seat Belt Use in 2010. DOT HS 811 378. Sept. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding of education programs alone which encourage changing driver
and occupant behavior but are not coupled by enactment of a state law
addressing that behavior are not effective and waste scarce grant
funds. For years education campaigns to discourage drinking and driving
were not effective until laws were passed threatening license
revocation, imposing stiffer penalties and requiring the use of
ignition interlock devices. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) reports that media campaigns and educational announcements alone
do not improve highway safety unless they are accompanied by
enforcement of traffic safety laws.\2\ For example, while motorcycle
helmet use is more than 75 percent in states with universal helmet laws
covering all riders, the rate falls to approximately 40 percent in
states that do not have all-rider motorcycle helmet laws.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Status Report: What
Works and Doesn't Work to Improve Highway Safety. Vol. 36, No. 5. 2001.
\3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety
Facts: Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2010. DOT HS 811 419. Dec. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, Advocates supports highway safety incentive grant
programs for states that adopt graduated driver licensing (GDL),
alcohol ignition interlock devices (IID) for first-time offenders,
primary seat belt, booster seat, and anti-texting laws. We commend the
Senate sponsors for including these provisions in S. 1449, the Motor
Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011.
In addition, Federal funds provided to states, especially under the
Section 402 program, must be expended on worthwhile state projects that
improve public safety. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) should establish performance goals in
conjunction with each state and review state plans for the expenditure
of those funds to ensure that state performance goals to improve public
safety are being met.
Question 2. What vehicle safety issues concern the safety advocates
the most at this time?
Answer. The series of hearings held by Senate and House committees
in the 111th Congress investigating sudden unintended acceleration
highlighted major deficiencies in vehicle safety standards and agency
oversight. The Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of
2011, S. 1449, looks at regulatory issues that have languished for
years and contains provisions that will require DOT to upgrade outdated
standards and dramatically improve auto safety. The inclusion of
provisions requiring the Secretary to mandate event data recorders
(EDRs), require final rules for vehicle electronic performance
standards and vehicle stopping distance and brake override standards,
and initiate rulemakings for a pedal placement standard addresses
serious safety problems and offers remedies that are long overdue and
will save lives and reduce economic costs.
Provisions to provide greater transparency and accountability are
essential to ensure that the public is not kept in the dark about
potential vehicle defects that can kill or maim. S. 1449 improves and
corrects problems with public availability of information initially
required under the 2000 Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Advocates supports
language contained in S. 1449 to improve the NHTSA vehicle safety data
base, including requirements to improve public access and require
recall information to be available and searchable. The agency still has
the authority to protect confidential proprietary information and trade
secrets. Passage of S. 1449 will both improve the safety performance of
motor vehicles and the performance of NHTSA.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Jacqueline S. Gillan
Question. As Ms. Gillan references in her testimony, the safety
standard for seatback performance has not been upgraded since it was
first adopted in 1967. If the driver or passenger seatback fails in a
crash, both the front and rear seat occupants are endangered. The
failure of a seatback directly in front of children places them at
risk. In particular, there have been several incidents of children
sitting in rear seats who have been injured in crashes in which
seatbacks collapse on them. Some have suffered brain damage in the
crashes.
How rampant a problem is this and how often are incidents
occurring? Are there safeguards that can be taken now to prevent this
from occurring? What steps is the auto industry taking to protect both
front and rear seat occupants? Are new cars still using 1967 standards
or has the industry been using higher standards?
Answer. One of the most important public health and safety messages
that safety groups, medical organizations, government agencies, and the
insurance auto industries all agree on and is widely promoted is that
the back seat is the safest place for a child of any age to ride in a
car. We therefore have an obligation to parents and others to ensure
that putting children in the rear seat does not jeopardize their safety
or cause death or injury in the event of a crash. Unfortunately,
seatback performance and the risk of seat back failure is a real and
serious problem that needs to be immediately addressed by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). For this reason,
Advocates urges passage of a provision in the NHTSA authorization bill
that directs the agency to upgrade this 1967 standard to ensure that
children are not seriously injured or killed in a crash because the
front seat fails.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) has determined that
collapsing seat backs are a serious threat to children, who are often
secured in the rear seat of passenger vehicles behind adult occupants.
In its study using data from 2000 through 2006, CHOP reported that 2.3
percent of child occupants seated in rear row outboard positions
sustained injuries in rear impact crashes.\4\ In these cases, occupants
were seated in front of the rear seat child occupants 71 percent of the
time, and front seat back deformation into the child's space occurred 8
percent of the time. For children in the rear seating area who had
seatback deformation directly in front of them, injury risk doubled.
Requiring the Secretary to issue final rules that upgrade the
performance of seats, including seatbacks, head restraints, and active/
passive restraint, will increase the protection of children and adults
in passenger motor vehicles crashes before more injuries occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ KB Arbogast, JS Jermakian, DR Durbin. Center for Injury
Research and Prevention, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Injury
Risk for Rear Impacts: Role of the Front Seat Occupant. Annals of
Advances in Automotive Medicine. Vol 52. 2008: 109-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1967 safety standard for seatback performance is just one of
many vehicle safety standards that has not been updated for decades.
For example, the Federal bumper standard (49 C.F.R. Pt. 581) has not
been updated since the 1970s, despite changing technologies and vehicle
structures. As a result, vehicle safety systems and passengers are not
as protected as they could be in low-speed collisions. Many Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) were revised and upgraded by
NHTSA only as the result of congressional mandates directing action
adopted in legislation, including the roof strength standard, the
vehicle stability standard, the occupant protection standard, the
pneumatic tire standard and the side impact standard.
This is why Advocates pursues and proposes the adoption of
legislative provisions directing the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to act when there is a serious safety threat that requires action.
Congressional direction means that updated, stronger safety standards
will be a priority for DOT, and these regulations will be implemented
in a timely manner. We strongly urge that language to require a final
rule upgrading the safety standard for seatback performance within 2
years be included in S. 1449, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety
Improvement Act of 2011.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Hon. Nicole Nason
Question 1. Given your experience on the issue, what highway safety
grants for states do you believe have been the most effective in
improving safety?
Answer. The most effective grants administered by NHTSA are the
ones that are based on sound data and enjoy strong oversight. The best
grants also allow for flexibility in the use of the funds. The seat
belt grant program was a success because the States were clear on the
goals and everyone understood the options for achieving those goals.
The program was not overly complex, but did allow for various pathways
for States to receive the funding. Most significantly, several States
passed primary belt laws as a result of this program. The seat belt
remains the single most important and effective safety device ever
developed. In order to make the best use of the funds, NHTSA needs to
continue a robust data-gathering program. Funding for the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) is extremely important, as it is the
nationwide system used by researchers for collecting and analyzing
crash data. I believe NASS is currently underfunded, and the data
regarding child injury and death is woefully lacking. I hope the
Committee supports the improved use of NASS in the future, and directs
the agency to focus on the issue of more accurate data regarding
children.
Question 2. What highway safety grants have been less effective?
How can we improve these less effective grants?
Answer. The least effective grants are the ones that are based
solely on the needs or desires of one constituency. In order for grant
programs to be valuable, the States need some flexibility in the use of
the funds. Grants that specifically limit or prohibit a State's ability
to discuss a significant safety question, such as motorcycle safety,
end up without value. I hope the Committee will review that particular
grant program and make appropriate changes. NHTSA should be required to
ensure that funds are being used effectively, but the States should be
able to focus their limited resources as they determine would be best.
Question 3. During your time as Administrator, as far as NHTSA's
vehicle safety mission, what specific areas or departments did you find
as the most critical and need the most funding in order to maintain a
strong safety standard for automobiles?
Answer. As a former Administrator, I can report that the agency
does more, with less funding, every year. While additional funds do not
always solve internal problems, I hope the Committee will continue to
focus resources on the vehicle safety office, and support the recall
team. In addition, I believe the multiple international travel budgets
should all be consolidated. I also hope the Committee will consider the
creation of an Ombudsman at NHTSA. For many people, their car is the
most valuable item they own. As the Toyota recall hearings made clear,
the public needs to feel more connected to the Federal agency that
oversees the safety of their vehicles.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Robert Strassburger
Question 1. As the auto industry continues to make developments to
increase safety, what should the Federal Government's role be in
setting a strong safety standard that keeps our drivers and passengers
safe?
Answer. According to NHTSA's data, traffic fatalities have been
steadily declining over the last 5 years, decreasing by about 25
percent from 2005 to 2010. The number of people injured in crashes is
also at its lowest point since NHTSA began estimating injury data in
1988. This constitutes the 10th consecutive yearly reduction in people
injured. In fact, fatalities and serious injuries resulting from motor
vehicle crashes in 2010 are at their lowest level in over 60 years.
This progress is even more remarkable given that the number of licensed
drivers has more than doubled and the number of annual vehicle miles
travelled has more than quadrupled in the last 60 years. These
reductions can be attributed to many factors including improvements in
motor vehicle design, effective highway safety programs, and to a
limited extent, the economy.
NHTSA, and the Safety Act that establishes its mission, came to be
because the marketplace didn't value safety; didn't demand ever safer
vehicles. That's no longer the case. Many of today's safety features
have been developed and implemented voluntarily by manufacturers not in
response to regulatory mandates. Thus, the Alliance welcomes this
Committee examining what should the Federal Government's role be going
forward.
The Alliance and others often emphasize the importance of adhering
to a model for effecting safety enhancements that has been proven
effective the world over. This model has three components which are:
1. Enactment of strong laws that are visibly enforced;
2. Education about those laws and the risks associated with
certain driving behaviors; and
3. Research into the scope and magnitude of various safety
concerns and potential technological countermeasures, and the
effectiveness of those countermeasures once implemented.
Thus, at minimum, the Federal Government's role should be to ensure
that sufficient resources and attention is being given to implement
safety grant, enforcement and communication programs. The Federal
Government also has a role to play in guiding and funding needed
research into safety concerns and potential countermeasures, and in
ensuring that the findings are disseminated in a timely manner.
With most of today's safety features being voluntarily developed
and implemented by vehicle manufacturers, the command and control
rulemaking model of the 1960s is not only no longer an effective model
but is actually counterproductive because it risks frustrating and
delaying, rather than facilitating the implementation of safety
enhancements. The Federal Government's role with respect to rulemakings
has evolved to be one of exercising rulemaking authority judiciously by
promulgating rules to adopt ``best practices'' once known to ensure
that all market participants, including new entrants, are engineering
their vehicles and safety systems according to these practices.
A lasting legacy for enhancing motor vehicle safety that the
Committee could undertake is to require that NHTSA periodically prepare
and provide to the Committee the agency's research and rulemaking
priority plan. NHTSA's current plan, which was released in March 2011,
was developed by the agency and finalized only after the agency
published a draft in the Federal Register and took public comment.
Administrator Strickland testified that this plan was developed, ``. .
. by focusing on the most significant safety risks, particularly
vulnerable populations and high occupancy vehicle issues.'' NHTSA's
Research and Rulemaking Priority Plan not only sets the ``safety
agenda'' for the nation, but it is also an excellent tool for the
Committee to exercise oversight.
Question 2. Do you believe NHTSA should provide regulations on
vehicle safety in response to nomadic devices, or cell phones and
similar devices, as they relate to use in vehicles?
Answer. NHTSA Administrator, David Strickland, testified at the
hearing that there exists a gap in Federal authority to regulate the
performance of ``nomadic'' devices relating to motor vehicle safety.
Administrator Strickland urged that this gap be eliminated and
recommended that his agency be given authority to ``develop performance
standards regarding nomadic devices in vehicles.'' See
pages 16-17 of hearing transcript.
The Alliance agrees with the Administrator that a gap in authority
exists and that this gap should be eliminated. How this gap is filled
and by whom potentially has significant implications. Currently NHTSA
has rulemaking authority over systems integrated into motor vehicles
and ``items of motor vehicle equipment'' as that phrase has been
defined by the Safety Act and interpreted by NHTSA. Nomadic devices are
not currently considered items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has authority over some aspects of
performance of nomadic devices such as maximum power or frequency
spectrum. However, it does not have the authority to regulate the
performance of these devices as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Robert Strassburger
Question. As Ms. Gillan references in her testimony, the safety
standard for seatback performance has not been upgraded since it was
first adopted in 1967. If the driver or passenger seatback fails in a
crash, both the front and rear seat occupants are endangered. The
failure of a seatback directly in front of children places them at
risk. In particular, there have been several incidents of children
sitting in rear seats who have been injured in crashes in which
seatbacks collapse on them. Some have suffered brain damage in the
crashes.
How rampant a problem is this and how often are incidents
occurring? Are there safeguards that can be taken now to prevent this
from occurring? What steps is the auto industry taking to protect both
front and rear seat occupants? Are new cars still using 1967 standards
or has the industry been using higher standards?
Answer. In the 21st century automobile, seating system performance
in a crash cannot reasonably be considered in isolation from other
aspects of the vehicle's ability to manage crash energy and mitigate
injury risk. Seating system crashworthiness is a complex design issue
that requires consideration of biomechanics of crash injury to
different size occupants, the geometry of the interior cabin of a given
vehicle, the performance of head restraints, location of the safety
belts relative to the occupants, the height of the seat back, the seat
track mechanisms, and other vehicle system considerations.
While seat back strength has been enhanced over the years, industry
research has documented that significantly stiffer seat backs do not
result in fewer injuries to rear seat occupants in high-speed rear
impact crashes. See, for example, Relationship Between Seatback
Stiffness/Strength and Risk of Serious/Fatal Injury in Rear Impact
Crashes, SAE 2009-01-1201 (2009)(concluding that seatback stiffness or
strength is not a statistically significant predictor of the risk of
serious/fatal injury for belted drivers and belted rear seat occupants
in high-speed rear crashes). Indeed, some research shows that making
the seat back more rigid may actually increase the risk of serious
injury in various collisions, including rear-impact collisions, for
vehicle occupants particularly older, heavier, or child occupants. See,
for example, Influence of Seating Position on Dummy Responses with ABTS
Seats in Severe Rear Impacts, SAE 2009-01-0250 (2009)(concluding that
occupants may be at risk for serious injury when the strength of the
seat exceeds the extension tolerance of the spine and their upper body,
head, or neck is unsupported.) Others have advocated for different
``yield'' behavior of seating systems in crashes, but without any
evidence that one type of ``yielding'' will produce better outcomes in
crashes than other ``yield'' patterns.
The automotive safety community, including NHTSA, Alliance members,
other vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers, has devoted
substantial resources over the past two decades to studying the issue
of seating system performance in crashes, especially since the Hybrid
III crash dummy was validated in the late 1990s for use to research
injury risk during high-speed rear impact crashes. NHTSA continues to
perform substantial research to evaluate the contribution of seat back
performance to injury risk in crashes. In 2004, NHTSA terminated a
rulemaking proceeding on this subject, noting:
``Improving seating system performance is more complex than
simply increasing the strength of the seat back. A proper
balance in seat back strength and compatible interaction with
head restraints and seat belts must be obtained to optimize
injury mitigation. Comprehensive information needed to
determine that proper balance is not available, although there
has been work on pieces of the problem.'' 69 Fed. Reg. 67068,
67069 (November 16, 2004).
Although terminating rulemaking in this area, NHTSA promised to
continue research on issues related to rear impact protection, and
specifically the performance of seats in this crash mode, and has done
so. However, as the agency noted in 2004, the available crash data do
not show that seating system performance in crashes represents a
significant national problem. NHTSA has committed to continuing
research into these issues as other safety priorities allow, and the
Alliance agrees that NHTSA has assigned an appropriate priority to this
issue, given the relatively small number of injuries attributable to
this condition.
You asked how frequently the condition of rear impacts resulting in
seat back failures arises. The answer is that these crashes are very
rare, and the contribution of seat performance is even harder to
discern. As NHTSA noted in 2004:
``. . . [R]ear impacts cause less than 2 percent of moderate-
to-severe injuries. Similarly, the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) shows that about 3 percent of all traffic crash
fatalities involved occupants of vehicles struck in the rear
(FARS annualized data 1998-2002). Thus, in comparison to other
crash modes, there is considerably less data available to
assess the potential benefits of upgrading FMVSS No. 207 for
higher speed rear impacts. The problem associated with the
relatively small number of moderate-to-severe injuries in rear
impacts is compounded by the difficulty in determining the
extent to which those injuries can be attributed to seat
performance.'' 69 Fed. Reg. 67068, 67069 (November 16, 2004)
The science of crash energy management is much more sophisticated
in 2011 than it was when FMVSS 207 was adopted, and has moved beyond
the requirements of the NHTSA standard, which is a component-based
approach, to a vehicle systems perspective that seeks to improve
outcomes in crashes for all vehicle occupants. The crash data support
the conclusion that modern seat and vehicle design are performing very
well in minimizing serious injury and death in rear impacts. As any
area of crash safety, future improvements and refinements are
constantly being studied, but in this case are more complex than simply
increasing the strength and stiffness of the seat back frame. Alliance
members are taking appropriate steps to protect occupants, both front
and rear, in crashes, through vehicle design strategies that are drawn
from among the best available solutions today.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Vernon Betkey
Question 1. While young driver fatalities have declined in the last
decade, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for
drivers 15-20 years old. What are the states doing to address this
issue? What are your thoughts on a national GDL standard such as the
STANDUP Act?
Answer. 49 of the 50 states have graduated licensing laws.
According to AAA, nearly all states have tightened the passenger and
nighttime driving restrictions in the last several years. (See
attachment.) 30 states and DC ban cell phone use by novice drivers. 34
states ban text messaging for all drivers, including novice drivers.
GDL laws are difficult to enforce because law enforcement officials
cannot easily distinguish between a 16-year-old novice driver and a
fully licensed 17-year-old. New Jersey is leading the Nation with its
decal program which makes it easier for law enforcement to enforce GDL
laws. Research on the New Jersey effort has not yet been published.
Other states are likely to follow suit if the decal strategy is found
effective. Many states have developed training materials for law
enforcement on teen driving.
States have also been very active in developing educational
programs on teen driving. Many states have peer-to-peer educational
efforts such as the Texas Teens in the Driver Seat program and the
Illinois Operation Teen Safe Driver program. A number of states are
currently developing educational programs aimed at parents. Oregon, for
example, has developed a teen driving curriculum specifically for
parents. Most states host teen driving summits, support their local
SADD chapters and conduct media campaigns aimed at teen drivers. A
number of states support statewide teen driving coalitions whose
purpose is to review teen driving laws and policies and make
recommendations to their Governor ors state legislatures for
improvements. The New Jersey Teen Driving Commission is a prime example
of this.
In addition to efforts involving public funds, states are engaged
in privately-funded teen driving programs. More than half of the states
have participated in the Ford Driving Skills for Life program over the
last several years. The program focuses on teaching teens four basic
driving skills (hazard recognition, speed management, space management
and vehicle handling) through an online academy, games, contests, Ride-
And-Drives, summer camp and other activities.
A number of states have received funding from the Allstate
Foundation for peer-to-peer educational programs. Ten states are
currently receiving additional Allstate funding to form state
coalitions to address the teen driving issue.
In 2010, GHSA published Protecting Teen Drivers: A Guidebook for
State Highway Safety Offices funded by State Farm, http://
www.ghsa.org/html/publications/sfteen/index.html. GHSA is currently
developing a more detailed case study report of state teen driving
programs which is expected to be published next spring.
GHSA would support a national standard that is research-based,
comprehensive and attainable. The difficulty with the STANDUP Act is
that 49 out of 50 states are not in compliance. Only DC and NJ are. If
the nighttime restriction is set at 10 p.m., then no state would be in
compliance. There is too much emphasis in the STANDUP Act on the age of
licensure, to the detriment of passenger and nighttime restrictions--
aspects of GDL which are more researched and, hence, more supportable.
GHSA does not support sanctions and would not support that part of the
STANDUP Act.
Question 2. What steps have the states taken to address improving
driver education requirements for new drivers and monitoring the
capabilities of elderly drivers to ensure they are prepared to drive
safely on roads? What more can be done?
Answer. Driver education is the responsibility of only three State
Highway Safety Offices--OR, OH and VA. In other states, the motor
vehicle administrations, the department of state, the department of
revenue, the department of transportation or other regulatory agency
are responsible for providing and regulating driver education.
Despite that, GHSA recognizes the importance of driver education
and has assisted in two national efforts on the topic. GHSA has been
involved in the development of administrative standards for driver
education which were released by NHTSA last year. The Association is
represented on the working group to oversee implementation of the
administrative standards. Last year, my state of Maryland as well as
Oregon piloted the development of a new NHTSA assessment for state
driver education programs. NHTSA has added this new assessment tool to
its litany of assessments available to states and intends to market it
to the states.
NHTSA, through a cooperative agreement with the Association of
Driver & Traffic Safety Education Association (ADTSEA), developed a
model driver education curriculum as well as curriculum standards. The
curriculum, the curriculum standards and the administrative standards
constitute a best practice for state driver education programs.
NHTSA should pilot test the ADTSEA curriculum, evaluate the pilot
and widely market the results to the states. NHTSA also should collect
information about the state of practice of driver education programs in
every state. Once this baseline information is collected, then
improvements in state driver education programs can be documented and
evaluated against the ADTSEA model.
With respect to elderly drivers, much more research is needed.
Since elderly drivers age differently, there is no single age at which
drivers should be permitted to drive or have their drivers' license
revoked. Current age-related driver tests by the state motor vehicle
administrations do not accurately evaluate an elderly's physical or
cognitive ability to drive.
The AAA Foundation has developed a good skills assessment tool for
elderly drivers, Drivers 65+, but it is designed only to be an early
warning tool to be used by seniors and their families. There is no
single, evidence-based, widely accepted test of an elderly driver's
knowledge, physical abilities and cognitive abilities that can
determine whether an elderly driver should continue to drive or not.
NHTSA funded a promising approach several years ago but that was never
replicated and has not been widely used by the states. NHTSA should
continue to fund research that would support the development of a more
appropriate testing standard that can be used with elderly drivers.
______
Attachment
______
Prepared Statement of The Hertz Corporation
This statement is submitted on behalf of The Hertz Corporation
(``Hertz''), both to endorse the statement submitted by the American
Car Rental Association, and to address comments made by National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') Administrator David
L. Strickland In his testimony before the Subcommittee on July 27,
2011.
First, please note that Hertz wholeheartedly agrees with and
endorses the statement submitted by the American Car Rental
Association. Those comments provide an important Industry perspective
which the Subcommittee has not yet heard, and identify significant
issues with sections 411 and 412 of the discussion draft of the
reauthorization legislation.
Second, we do wish to separately address the comments made by
Administrator Strickland in support of his Agency's request that
Congress expand NHTSA authority so that the Agency has direct
regulatory authority over rental car companies in the same manner as
the Agency now has control over vehicle manufacturers. From its
earliest formation, NHTSA has always been charged with ensuring the
safety of the design of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
equipment, by giving the Agency authority to regulate the activities of
motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers, dealers and distributors In
order to: (1) ``prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce;'' and (2)
``carry out needed safety research and development.'' 49 U.S.C.
30101. NHTSA has never had regulatory authority over individual or
fleet owners of vehicles, which authority has always been reserved for
States, many of which regulate through periodic inspection and
maintenance programs and some of which regulate through vehicle
registration renewal requirements (see, e.g., State of California
Registration Renewal/Recall Enforcement Program).
In response to questioning from Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), NHTSA
Administrator Strickland stated that he was seeking regulatory
authority over rental car companies because, he said, there is evidence
that rental car companies are not fixing vehicles subject to recall in
a timely manner, and that rental car companies are renting vehicles
subject to recall to consumers prior to the completion of the recall
repair. Both assertions are erroneous and neither assertion has any
basis In the complete record before NHTSA In its Inquiry Into rental
car repair completion rates, NHTSA Docket No. AQ 10-001.
First, and perhaps most importantly, Hertz and other major rental
car companies are not renting vehicles subject to NHTSA safety recall
notices pending completion of the repair or an interim remedial measure
that makes the vehicle safe to operate before final repair is conducted
(as in the Toyota floor mat example provided In the ACRA comments).
With the exception of the one tragic accident in 2004 with respect to
one rental car company, Hertz is aware of no other accidents which have
been shown to be the result of a rental car company renting a vehicle
subject to a NHTSA recall prior to completion of the recall remedy, or
of an Interim remedial step approved by the vehicle manufacturer to
make the vehicle safe prior to the final recall repair. Certainly, no
other such accident has been identified in the NHTSA audit query or In
the materials submitted to the NHTSA docket related to the audit query.
The rental car companies themselves submitted evidence that, on
average, 80 percent of vehicles subject to recall are repaired within
60 days, and that in those few Instances In which repairs are not
conducted In that timeframe, vehicle parts availability and
availability of dealer bays to conduct repairs are the primary
culprits. Data submitted by Hertz to NHTSA on July 22, 2011 (which is
attached), demonstrates both points. While three vehicle manufacturers
submitted data that suggested slower rates of recall repairs, both Ford
and Chrysler specifically stated on the NHTSA record that the recall
repair completion data presented by vehicle manufacturers is not
accurate as to the timing of recall repairs or as to the ownership of
the vehicle at the time a recall Is announced. These Inaccuracies
Include: (1) that the vehicle manufacturers overstated the number of
vehicles in the rental car fleet, in some cases by more than 85
percent, because they relied on R.L. Polk & Company vehicle
registration data which often lags as much as 2 months or more In
reporting change of vehicle ownership at the end of the relatively
short, 12-18 month term that vehicles remain In rental car fleets; and
(2) that vehicle manufacturers reportedly used their own dealer claims
records to determine date of recall repair, but many vehicles are
repaired at rental car maintenance facilities, meaning that dealer
recordkeeping and claims records are likely to be incomplete. Both Ford
and Chrysler suggested that NHTSA should instead rely on data submitted
by rental car companies as to repair completion rates, and that data
shows consistently timely repairs.
Given the specific demonstration by rental car companies that they
are not renting vehicles pending recall repairs, It Is unclear why
NHTSA is now expressing concern about the speed with which rental car
companies are repairing recalled vehicles. Obviously, rental car
companies have every economic incentive to get recalled vehicles
repaired and back on the road as soon as possible. Since the NHTSA
audit query has clearly shown that the greatest constraint to timely
recall repair completion is vehicle manufacturer capacity to produce
new parts and franchised dealer capacity to repair vehicles, if speed
of repair is truly a concern at NHTSA, the Agency could use Its
existing authority under 49 U.S.C. 30120(c) to require manufacturers
to be ready to accomplish recall repairs within 60 days of announcement
and to prioritize recall repair availability to fleet owners and/or
other vehicle population segments, as appropriate. NHTSA's legitimate
regulatory Interest In encouraging faster production of replacement
parts so recalled vehicles can be repaired promptly and put back Into
the stream of commerce by responsible fleet owners like Hertz, can be
addressed by the Agency's existing regulatory authority. No change in
the current NHTSA authorizing statute is needed.
When the actual facts regarding recall management practices of
rental car companies are understood, It is clear that the rental car
Industry has--with the single exception noted above--an excellent
safety record handling vehicle recalls. Given that safety record,
rental car companies should not be singled out for NHTSA regulatory
authority and oversight with respect to rental car industry completion
of safety defect repairs among all other vehicle owners whose vehicles
need these repairs, and certainly not among other commercial owners of
vehicles, delivery companies, government and company employee fleets,
and the rental industry's direct competitors at taxi, limousine, car-
sharing and other private car services.
______
Attachment
Arent Fox
July 22, 2011
Via e-mail and First-Class Mail
O. Kevin Vincent, Esquire
Chief Counsel
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Washington, DC.
Re: Hertz Corporation Supplemental Submission of Recall Repair
Completion Rates
Dear Kevin:
As you know, this firm represents The Hertz Corporation
(``Hertz''). I am writing to provide you with the attached supplemental
information regarding recall repair completion rates for National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') vehicle
recalls in the Hertz rental fleet that have been initiated since July
1, 2010.
Hertz is reporting recall repair completion rates since July 1,
2010 for 50-state national recalls of private passenger cars as to
which Hertz had more than ten vehicles in its fleet affected by the
recall. Please note that for all of these recalls, from the time that
the owner notification letter specifying YIN information was received
by Hertz, the vehicle was coded in Hertz' computer systems as on ``S''
(Safety) hold pending repair. The ``S'' hold designation directs rental
personnel that the affected vehicles are not to be rented pending
completion of the recall repair.
As we previously indicated in discussions with the agency, until
late 2010, Hertz was using a computerized system to track maintenance
on vehicles which did not capture all of the data sought by NHTSA and
that we would like to report here. As a consequence, the attached
actually understates Hertz' timely recall repair completion
performance. Many off-site repairs and vehicle sales/scrappage
conducted could not be tracked exactly into 30, 60, 90 and 120-day
periods. However, those completions are later accounted for in the
column ``percentage completed to date.''
As you can see from the attached chart, Hertz maintenance
facilities are averaging repair rates of 81 percent and better within
60 days, and this does not include offsite repairs and sold/scrapped
vehicles. In most instances in which Hertz has not been able to
promptly repair vehicles (several of which are footnoted on the
attached), delay was caused by parts availability and available access
to dealer facilities to obtain the repair. When parts are available and
repairs can be conducted at Hertz facilities, repair completion rates
are significantly shortened. In all cases, rental counter personnel are
instructed not to rent affected vehicles awaiting recall repair. Given
this, NHTSA can be assured that Hertz has every incentive to repair
these vehicles as promptly as possible to get them back on the road,
and prompt repairs are in fact happening.
The attached data is significantly more reliable than data
submitted by the vehicle manufacturers in early 2011. Consequently, we
ask that NHTSA evaluate Hertz' recall repair completion performance
based on this data. We also ask that NHTSA acknowledge that in this
period, as in prior periods, Hertz' policy has been to place vehicles
subject to NHTSA recalls on ``Safety'' hold so that such vehicles are
not rented to the public before a repair or interim remedial measure
approved by the manufacturer has been performed. Indeed, we should note
here that in compiling this data, Hertz identified additional vehicles
the company had pulled from the rental pool and put on ``S'' hold based
on vehicle manufacturer service campaigns for ``customer
satisfaction,'' which Hertz concluded had a safety component even
though no NHTSA recall was being conducted. So, the attached data
actually understates the number of Hertz vehicles that have been on
``Safety'' hold for vehicle manufacturer issues in the last 12 months.
Given that, unlike other commercial users or individual customers,
Hertz is actually parking vehicles subject to recall, waits of 60-120
days or more for a repair cause significant strain and business
disruption to Hertz and its rental customers. As we have previously
noted, under 49 U.S.C. 30120(c), NHTSA has considerable authority to
require manufacturers to prioritize recalls and to conduct recalls
within what NHTSA considers a reasonable time. Hertz asks that NHTSA
exercise this authority to shorten the time frames from defect
notification to repair for vehicle users like Hertz who lose use of
their vehicles pending the defect repair.
We also continue to recommend that NHTSA convene a meeting of
vehicle manufacturer and rental car company industry participants to
address open issues with respect to: (1) unclear communication to
vehicle owners (including rental car companies) about required steps
when vehicles are subject to safety recall or are subject to some other
sort of notification, including a ``customer satisfaction'' issue which
appears to have a safety implication; (2) the possibility of according
rental car companies priority treatment with respect to part and repair
availability for vehicles subject to safety recalls; and (3) the
accuracy of vehicle manufacturer safety campaign completion data. We
think the parties could choose a neutral to moderate their discussions
and that much could be achieved ifNHTSA directs the parties to work
toward resolution of these and other issues.
We would be pleased to provide further detail or information about
any particular recall. Please let us know if you have questions about
any of the attached information.
Sincerely,
Deanne M. Ottaviano.
Hertz Rental Car Fleet 50-State Private Passenger Vehicles
NHTSA Recall Repair Completion Rates
July 1, 2010 to July 15, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Rental Date Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Completed
Availability Issued Mfg Recall Number Owned at Completed Completed Completed Completed to Date
Activation 30 Days 60 Days 90 Days 120 Days \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S 7/7/2010 Ford 10C13 20 50 85 85 85 100
S 7/16/2010 GM 2010216 47 68.75 75 75 81.25 100
S 8/19/2010 CHRY K08 12 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 98.15
S 8/19/2010 GM 2010243 7011 69.12 75.11 77.84 78.49 99.94
S 8/19/2010 CHRY K15 22 86.36 90.91 90.91 95.45 100
S 8/27/2010 NISSAN R1029 1413 58.64 65.69 67.02 67.49 100
S 9/28/2010 MAZDA 6010H \2\ 866 39.36 44.3 46.31 47.07 99.42
S 10/25/2010 2010312 2205 58.34 62.51 63.82 64.97 99.55
S 10/27/2010 MERCED 2010100002 319 53.45 58.33 60.34 64.66 94.67
S 11/4/2010 VW 97S8 \3\ 156 15.18 20.94 21.99 31.94 98.08
S 11/10/2010 MAZDA 5409D 495 42.37 49.91 53.48 55.37 100
S 11/18/2010 GM 2010351 1703 76.46 80.27 81.09 81.42 99.82
S 11/30/2010 GM 2010211 12 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33 100
S 11/30/2010 NISSAN PM062 1484 81.38 89.72 95.09 96.91 99.8
S 12/1/2010 GM 2010309 608 32.8 63.68 75.2 79.68 99.84
S 12/10/2010 CHRY K13 \4\ 33 3086 39.51 39.51 39.51 82.5
S 12/20/2010 MAZDA 6110K 4373 55.84 72.27 77.33 78.44 99.61
S 12/21/2010 GM 2010370 498 79.36 88.98 90.58 91.18 100
S 12/29/2010 GM 10426B 617 80.26 95.63 98.06 98.38 99.51
S 1/14/2011 GM 2010256 157 75.16 85.71 86.34 86.34 100
S 2/10/2011 CHRY K37 55 68.85 78.69 78.69 78.69 98.18
S 2/17/2011 VW 20I4 894 76.4 84.13 85.5 85.93 99.89
S 2/24/2011 TOYO A0P 3144 96.63 91.39 93.11 93.55 98.92
S 3/10/2011 GM 2011057 148 92.57 95.95 95.95 96.62 100
S 3/17/2011 GM 2011029 15 73.33 80 80 80 100
S 3/22/2011 MAZDA 6211B 4377 77.15 82.31 83.71 98.79
S 4/12/2011 MITSU SR10-001 11 81.82 81.82 90.91 100
S 4/12/2011 SUBARU WVP26 12 66.67 83.33 83.33 91.67
S 4/15/2011 TOYO B0B 156 53.37 65.64 69.94 89.74
S 4/26/2011 VW 97V3 372 85.79 90.62 91.96 98.66
S 4/28/2011 TOYO B0F 52 76.92 88.46 88.46 92.31
S 5/9/2011 GM 2011149 1523 81.38 90.95 97.24
S 5/9/2011 HONDA 11V176 297 82.82 92.26 92.59
S 5/10/2011 GM 2011142 2995 74.04 90.39 96.76
S 5/17/2011 NISSAN PC012 73 35.29 44.71 91.78
S 6/9/2011 GM 2011162 630 84.52 93.02
S 6/30/2011 CHRY L23 868 55.41 57.37
S 7/5/2011 GM 2011191 12 23.08 25
S 7/12/2011 MAZDA 6411F 44 2.27
S 7/28/2010 GM 2010038 \5\ 56 33.33 35.09 36.84 38.6 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This Column includes off-site repairs and vehicle sales/scrappage which could not be tracked in 30,60,90 and 120-day periods
\2\ Pursuant to Mazda requirements, this vehicle had to be repaired at the Mazda dealership, and available access to a dealership caused significant
delays. Note that, pursuant to Hertz policy with respect to these and all other vehicles subject to NHTSA recall, affected vehicles were coded and
rental personnel were instructed not to rent vehicles pending recall repair completion
\3\ These vehicles were in Hawaii when recall was announced, and delays were encountered in getting necessary parts and getting access to repairs at
available dealer under recall. Note that, pursuant to Hertz policy with respect to these and all other vehicles subject to NHTSA recall, affected
vehicles were coded and rental personnel were instructed not to rent vehicles pending recall repair completion.
\4\ These vehicles were in Hawaii when recall was announced, and delays were encountered in getting necessary parts and getting repairs at dealer under
recall. Note that, pursuant to Hertz policy with respect to these and all other vehicles subject to NHTSA recall, affected vehicles were coded and
rental personnel were instructed not to rent vehicles pending recall repair completion
\5\ This NHTSA recall was related to floor mats causing potential pedal entrapment in 2009-10 Pontiac Vibe and, pursuant to manufacturer instructions,
removal of floor mat made vehicle safe for use while awaiting redesign and delivery of new floor mats.
______
Prepared Statement of Jan Withers, National President,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Thank you Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Toomey for the
opportunity to submit testimony before the Committee and for holding
this important hearing. Last year, MADD celebrated its 30th Anniversary
with a rally on Capitol Hill to celebrate our Nation's past success and
to focus on what more must be done to eliminate drunk driving.
Since our founding in 1980, drunk driving fatalities have dropped
by over 40 percent, with more than 300,000 lives saved. We are proud of
our success, but as we reflect on three decades of advocacy with the
goal of saving lives, we must not accept complacency. We all must
recommit to saving lives and the elimination of drunk driving. Every
one of us should be outraged that:
In 2010 alone, 10,839 people, one-third of all highway
fatalities, were killed due to drunk driving.
Over 350,000 people were injured last year in drunk driving
crashes.
50-75 percent of convicted drunk drivers will continue to
drive on a suspended license.
Drunk driving costs our Nation $129 billion per year.
One Arkansas resident holds the record for most DUIs with 44
convictions.
MADD has put a face to the crime of drunk driving, sharing story
after story of lives cut short due to someone's senseless actions. It
is these stories, including my own, that continue to propel our
organization forward, moving toward the attainable goal of eliminating
this public health epidemic once and for all.
I came to MADD in 1992 after my 15-year-old daughter, Alisa Joy,
was killed by an underage drinker who chose to drive drunk after
consuming numerous beers. Alisa was a gift of sunshine to us. She was a
kind and funny person, evoking a gracefulness of spirit as well as
movement. I loved watching her friends naturally gravitate to her as
much as I loved watching her dance. In both, she radiated joy.
On a balmy evening during spring vacation, Alisa and two of her
friends decided to go out with two senior boys. While out, the guys
drank a couple of ``six-packs'' they had previously hidden in the
woods. On the way home, when the driver's judgment and reactions were
impaired, he lost control of the car. As the car was vaulted into the
air after hitting a guardrail, the right side was sliced away and Alisa
was ejected from the car. She sustained massive injuries as her body
was hurled through the forest of trees.
The driver had a blood alcohol concentration of .08--the illegal
limit. I personally know what the effects of a .08 BAC sound like as I
listened to a respirator pump air into Alisa's lungs in the emergency
room. I personally know what the effects of underage drinking feel like
when Alisa was declared dead. A piece of me died with her at that
moment.
The statistics we often hear are not just numbers to me. Alisa Joy
Withers was my baby. She had a face and a story to tell. Now I must
tell her story, instead. Many of you have children with stories to
tell. We want them to be able to tell their own stories--not have their
mother telling it for them after they died. This is why I am here
representing MADD.
Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving
Fortunately, MADD has a plan. In 2006, following research of proven
countermeasures, MADD announced its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving
which:
First, supports more resources for high-visibility law
enforcement;
Second, requires convicted drunk drivers to install an
ignition interlock device; and,
Lastly, turns cars into the cure through the development of
advanced in-vehicle technology.
High-Visibility Law Enforcement
Studies show that the combination of paid media ads with law
enforcement is proven to deter drunk drivers from getting behind the
wheel. MADD supported authorizing $29 million per year for NHTSA to
conduct three annual mobilization efforts as part of SAFETEA-LU. We
thank the Committee for authorizing the program, and we hope to see it
continue at even more robust funding levels. Drunk Driving: Over the
Limit, Under Arrest is conducted twice yearly and Click it or Ticket
once per year. Both campaigns have been highly-effective.
The paid ads target audiences who have the highest risk of driving
drunk. While the ads are running on television and radio, law
enforcement conducts sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols.
Would-be offenders see the advertisements, see law enforcement out in
force, and realize that they will be caught if they drive drunk. This
deterrence approach is one of the most effective tools the Nation has
to prevent drunk driving.
MADD recommends that the next reauthorization bill include
increased funding for a minimum of 3 yearly crackdowns focusing on
drunk driving and seat belt enforcement.
We commend the Committee for the inclusion of Section 109, the High
Visibility Enforcement Program, in its draft bill, and specifically for
stipulating ``at least three'' national crackdown periods each year.
Interlocks Save Lives
An ignition interlock is a breath test device linked to a vehicle's
ignition system. The interlock allows a DUI offender to continue to
drive wherever they need to go--they just can't drive drunk. The
research on interlocks is crystal clear and irrefutable. Since New
Mexico and Arizona implemented all offender interlock laws, DUI
fatalities in those states have been reduced by 36 and 46 percent
respectively.
Every American should be protected under an all-offender interlock
law. MADD is now hitting roadblocks from the alcohol industry and DUI
defense attorneys as we try to pass this law in state legislatures. We
strongly urge this Committee to work with the Senate Environment and
Public Works (EPW) Committee to develop a strategy to encourage every
state to adopt an all-offender interlock law as part of the
reauthorization bill.
Under this Committee's jurisdiction, incentives could be offered to
states which enact an all-offender interlock law in the first half of
the life of the new Federal law, and under the EPW Committee's
jurisdiction, an all-offender interlock Federal standard could be
included for the second half of the life of the law. This lifesaving
measure is sound policy.
MADD commends the Committee for including Section 107(g), Grants to
States That Adopt and Enforce Mandatory Alcohol-Ignition Interlock
Laws, in the draft bill.
Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology
While interlocks are currently the most proven technology available
to stop drunk driving, a program is underway to provide an advanced in-
vehicle option for consumers. This technology could potentially
eliminate drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for
Safety, or DADSS, is the result of a research agreement between NHTSA
and many of the world's leading auto manufacturers.
The purpose of this agreement is to research, develop, and
demonstrate non-invasive in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies that
can very quickly and accurately measure a driver's BAC. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety estimates that over 8,000 lives could be
saved if the technology is widely deployed in the U.S.
Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bob Corker have introduced bipartisan
legislation, called ROADS SAFE, which would authorize an additional $12
million per year for DADSS. In the House, Representatives Shelley Moore
Capito, Heath Shuler, and John Sarbanes have introduced identical
legislation.
Just this week a diverse coalition of organizations and companies
sent a strong letter of support to Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking
Member Hutchison, outlining the importance of this life-saving research
effort. MADD would like to submit this letter for the record.
MADD would like to thank the Committee for including ROADS SAFE in
the draft bill under Section 111, Driver Alcohol Detection System for
Safety Research. We look forward to working with the Committee to
ensure that this program is authorized and funded.
Reevaluating the Highway Safety Grant Formula Program
Turning to the grant programs, MADD agrees with the Governors
Highway Safety Association that the current program needs to be
streamlined. It is also critical that dollars are spent on programs
that work. SAFETEA-LU traffic safety grants represent the majority of
funds that states spend on drunk driving prevention. With respect to
the impaired driving grant program, funding must be spent on activities
that save the most lives, with meaningful performance and activity
measures in place to gauge program effectiveness. NHTSA must have the
authority to ensure states are moving in the right direction.
A series of Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have
been released, showing what is needed to improve traffic safety grant
programs. The OIG and GAO have made several recommendations to NHTSA,
including the development of performance measures in coordination with
the states. While NHTSA has since worked with the states to develop
performance measures, MADD does not feel that these measures are
meaningful enough to fulfill the intent of the OIG and GAO.
MADD appreciates the work this Committee has done over the years in
directing GAO and the OIG to review NHTSA's programs, and outlining
steps that NHTSA can take to improve its oversight functions and the
effectiveness of state expenditures.
We commend the Committee for including provisions in Section 102
that require performance measure development and provide additional
oversight authority to the Secretary of Transportation.
Conclusion
MADD applauds the Committee's leadership to eliminate drunk driving
and specifically thanks the Committee for including several important
provisions in its draft reauthorization bill:
Section 109--High Visibility Enforcement Program, with at
least three national crackdown periods;
Section 107(g)--Grants to States That Adopt and Enforce
Mandatory Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws;
Section 111--Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
Research;
Section 102--Inclusion of performance measure development
and additional oversight authority to the Secretary of
Transportation to ensure states spend funds on activities that
will save the most lives and prevent the most injuries.
Thank you for holding this important hearing to advance our
Nation's highway and highway safety programs. You are to be commended
for your leadership on these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Car Rental Association
This statement is submitted by the American Car Rental Association
(``ACRA'') on behalf of its members, which include every major car
rental company (with the exception of the Hertz Corporation).
ACRA members--along with the Hertz Corporation--account for more
than 90 percent of all vehicles rented in the United States each year.
Safety is a top priority for our industry, and we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety
Improvement Act of 2011 discussion draft.
We understand that the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement
Act introduced on Friday, July 29 by Senators Pryor and Rockefeller
does not contain Sections 411 and 412, which were part of the draft
discussed during the July 27 Subcommittee Hearing. Because those
particular sections are of significant interest to our industry, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments for the record.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``MVSA'') was enacted in 1966 to
promote safety on our Nation's roadways for all vehicle operators and
their passengers. Under the MVSA, all vehicle owners have been treated
equally including rental car companies; numerous other owners of fleets
of vehicles such as the Federal Government, state and local government
entities; corporate fleet owners; and individual owners. For the first
time, the discussion draft inexplicably singled out rental car
companies from hundreds of millions of other vehicle owners (fleets and
individuals).
If the concern is that someone drives and/or is a passenger in a
vehicle subject to a recall--without knowledge of the recall--it
obviously should make no difference whether the owner of the vehicle is
a rental car company or taxi company, government agency or a parent
transporting the neighborhood kids to the park. Yet, the draft
legislation was directed only at rental car companies. Such
discrimination has no rational basis and ignores the fact that the
major rental car companies (uniquely among vehicle owners in general)
ground/do not rent vehicles subject to a recall notice in almost all
instances.
Section 412 of the discussion draft, as noted, was the first-ever
attempt to regulate the rental car industry under the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act. As a result, it would seem to require some justification,
analysis or data (particularly since the Administration has recognized
the burden regulation puts on business and the need to carefully
justify regulation). We have seen no such data or analysis presented by
NHTSA or any other proponent of the bill, and we do not believe a case
can be made that the regulation of our industry in this way is
justified.
When NHTSA launched its Audit Query last fall to investigate how
rental car companies were responding to recall notices versus the
general population of vehicle owners, a number of rental car companies
including Enterprise Holdings, The Hertz Corporation and Avis Budget
Group offered to provide NHTSA assistance in the agency's review.
Ultimately, representatives of those companies met with representatives
of NHTSA and voluntarily responded to NHTSA's requests for information.
In its initial inquiry NHTSA asked three automobile manufacturers--
Ford, General Motors and Chrysler--for data on response rates to
certain selected recalls. When the data was submitted, Ford and
Chrysler each advised NHTSA that the manufacturers' data was likely to
be inaccurate because rental car company fleets turn over much more
rapidly compared to other vehicle owners. They also each advised NHTSA
that the best source of information concerning the completion rates for
rental cars would be the rental car companies themselves. However,
NHTSA did not request the rental car companies to provide such
information.
Enterprise Holdings, The Hertz Corporation and Avis Budget Group
nonetheless voluntarily provided their own current and accurate data in
an effort to educate NHTSA and help the agency avoid reaching erroneous
conclusions. Therefore, we are understandably troubled by Administrator
Strickland's answers to Senator Blunt's questions during the July 27
hearing because it appears he is not familiar with the information
provided by the rental car companies to NHTSA (including information
which was, at the time of his testimony, posted on the agency's
website).
More specifically, Administrator Strickland appeared to be unaware
of three critical facts during his testimony. They are:
1. With rare exceptions the major rental car companies do not
rent any vehicle subject to a recall notice until the recall
work is completed. The rare exceptions consist of instances
when no safety issue would be presented by operation of the
vehicle pending completion of the recall work given the
particular circumstances presented by the recall.
2. The major rental car companies have recall work completed on
80 to 90 percent or more of their vehicles within thirty to
sixty days. This record likely far exceeds that of any other
group of vehicle owners. (Meanwhile, to our knowledge, NHTSA
has taken no steps to try to analyze completion rates of any
category of vehicle owners besides rental car companies.)
3. When rental car companies experience delays in getting
recall work done promptly, it is often because necessary parts
are not readily available. However, because those vehicles are
not available for rent in almost all instances, there is no
public safety issue created by such delays.
The rental car industry is proud of its performance in handling
recalled vehicles and believes it exceeds that of any other class of
vehicle owners. To the extent that NHTSA has a problem with how vehicle
owners respond to recall notices, that problem does not lie with rental
car companies.
For example, consider the Toyota pedal entrapment recall in 2010.
Toyota advised vehicle owners that if they removed the drivers' side
floor mat, the vehicle could be safely operated pending Toyota's
development and implementation of a repair for the pedal. Rental car
companies responded by removing the floor mats from these vehicles and
continuing to rent them while Toyota developed a remedy. Removal of the
drivers' side floor mat was so effective as an interim solution that
NHTSA permitted Toyota to continue to manufacture and sell the affected
vehicles in the very same condition that caused the recall--but without
the floor mats. Thus, Toyota continued to sell such vehicles for months
until the auto manufacturer was able to develop a fix for the problem
and notify owners that they could now bring their vehicles to a Toyota
dealer to have the fix implemented. In the period after that second
notice, rental car companies continued to rent these vehicles without
the floor mats recognizing that, just as before the Toyota notice of
the final remedy had been sent, there was no safety issue presented as
long as the floor mats had been removed. Following Toyota's notice that
the pedal fix was ready to be implemented, rental car companies had the
pedal fix completed. The fact that our industry rented these vehicles
without the floor mats during the interim (something which would be
prohibited by the proposed legislation unless disclosures were made)
cannot be criticized given that all involved recognized the vehicles
were safe to operate in that condition. To prohibit such rentals makes
no sense and is an example of regulation without justification.
A typical recall notice advises all vehicle owners that an
appointment should be made to have the vehicle inspected and/or
repaired at an authorized dealer as soon as possible. If the work
cannot be done within sixty days, a complaint may be filed with NHTSA.
Recall notices do not typically recommend that the vehicle owner cease
operation of the vehicle in the interim period nor does the notice
recommend owners advise unsuspecting passengers or other users of the
vehicle of the existence of the recall.
Notwithstanding the fact that a typical recall notice does not
recommend the owner discontinue operation of the vehicle, it is, as
noted earlier, the practice of the rental car industry, in almost all
instances, to cease renting such vehicles until the recall work is
completed. In this regard, we believe our industry is unique among
vehicle owners including taxicabs, limousines, and corporate and
governmental fleets in taking this step pending completion of the
recall work.
There are some instances, rare in our experience, when the
manufacturer's notice advises that the owner ``Not drive the vehicle to
the dealer'' or words of similar import. In such cases, it is the
practice of our members to not only cease renting such vehicles but to
also take immediate steps to retrieve any vehicles already on rent.
Members of the Committee undoubtedly are aware that there was a
tragic accident in 2004 involving a rental car that was subject to a
recall. As tragic as this accident was, it must be placed in the
context of the scope of our business and our track record. Since this
accident in 2004, nearly 7 years and billions of rental days later,
there has not been any similar incident. In fact, as an industry we are
not aware of another such incident even predating the one in 2004.
Moreover, our industry's practices have substantially changed since
then due to technological improvements and policy changes with respect
to how recalled vehicles are handled.
Furthermore the discussion draft (which was prepared and submitted
without consultation with our industry) proposed a ``disclosure''
process that would be unworkable and apparently was prepared with
little knowledge of the car rental industry. Firstly, we note the draft
legislation was silent on the specific disclosure that would be
required. Even if it were possible to make a disclosure, rental car
companies would undoubtedly be subject to litigation with respect to
the adequacy of any disclosure that was made.
Setting aside the potential for litigation, and the failure to
specify the disclosure to be made, the required disclosure would be
impossible to provide given current business practices. For instance,
many customers rent vehicles without ever going to a rental counter and
engaging with a rental agent. In fact, customers often use kiosks or
other methods to bypass the counter, go directly to their vehicle and
drive to the exit booth with a vehicle of their own selection. One
small but growing segment of the rental car business is car sharing and
the car sharing model provides for no interaction with a rental car
company agent at the time of the transaction.
In short, even if the statute provided more clarity, there is no
practical way the car rental industry could comply with the disclosure
requirement--regardless of whether a vehicle was being rented for an
hour, a day, a week or longer.
Another obvious problem with Section 412, as proposed in the
discussion draft, was that it provided no time between receipt of a
recall notice and the obligation to disclose and/or to cease renting.
Many rental car companies, including those representing more than 90
percent of the rental car business in the United States, have locations
across the country but receive recall notices at a central location.
There is no way a recall notice could be received at a central office
of a major rental car company and somehow be instantaneously
communicated all across the country so that a written disclosure would
be available to a customer (assuming the customer went to the rental
counter) and/or that the company could instantaneously cease renting
the vehicles in question.
Furthermore, to identify the vehicles in rental car company fleets
subject to a recall requires VIN numbers from the manufacturers
(typically not provided in the mailed recall notice). Those vehicles
then have to be identified in company computer systems and marked as
subject to a recall. The discussion draft language apparently was
drafted on the mistaken assumption that all this would occur
instantaneously upon receipt of the recall notice. Unfortunately, this
is not the case.
Section 411 of the discussion draft proposed that used car sales
require a disclosure of the existence of a recall or no sale could take
place until the recall was completed. Some rental car companies are
engaged in the retail sale of vehicles, and we believe it is the
practice of such companies to have recall work performed before a
vehicle is sold to a retail customer. However, the vast majority of
rental vehicles are sold by rental companies in wholesale channels, at
auctions and/or to automobile dealers who are knowledgeable and fully
capable of ascertaining the status of a recall on a given vehicle. It
is not standard practice that recall work is done prior to sales in
wholesale channels as the expectancy is that recall work is performed
prior to the ultimate sale to a retail customer. We have no objection
to a requirement that used car dealers have such work done before a
retail sale (although there may be legitimate concerns in the used car
industry with respect to the ability to obtain adequate information to
identify such vehicles within used car dealers' inventories). However,
there is no reason why the wholesale sale of vehicles should be
regulated in this way. At any given time, as recall notices are
received, rental car companies will have vehicles in transit to dealers
and/or to auctions or already at auctions for sale. It would be
burdensome and costly for those vehicles to have to be pulled back from
sale in those venues. There is no offsetting benefit to be obtained
given the nature of wholesale buyers and their ability to have the
recall work done (for which they will be compensated by the
manufacturer) once they have acquired possession of the vehicle. Thus,
we believe that any version of section 411 of the discussion draft
ultimately proposed should be amended to clarify that it applies only
to retail sales.