    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 14, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-133

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                  ____________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    20-613                          WASHINGTON : 2017
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Missouri               JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota

               Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

                           MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     Chairman
                                         JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey              Ranking Member
      Vice Chairman                      YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi                Massachusetts
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              TONY CARDENAS, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 officio)
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, opening statement..............................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................     4
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Mark Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
      Administration.................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   119
    Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile
      Manufacturers..................................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    41
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   139
    John Bozzella, President and CEO, Global Automakers..............    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   145
    Michael Wilson, CEO, Automotive Recyclers Association............    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   149
    Jacqueline Gillian, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
      Safety.........................................................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   159
    Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor and Equipment
      Manufacturers Association......................................    96
        Prepared statement...........................................    98
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   164

                               Submitted material

    Statement of the Rubber Manufacturers Association................   113
    Statement of Property Casualty Insurers..........................   115
    Letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association............   117

        OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
    Harper, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin,
    Upton (ex officio), Schakowsky, Clarke, Kennedy, Cardenas,
    Butterfield, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Sean Bonyun, Communications Director;
    Leighton Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; Rebecca Card, Assistant
    Press Secretary; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Paige
    Decker, Executive Assistant; Graham Dufault, Counsel, Commerce,
    Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce,
    Manufacturing, and Trade; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative
    Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jay Gulshen, Staff
    Assistant; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing,
    and Trade; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Olivia Trusty,
    Professional Staff, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan
    Vorbach, Deputy Press Secretary; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief
    Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jeff Carroll,
    Minority Staff Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel,
    Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler,
    Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
    Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst;
    Diana Rudd, Minority Legal Fellow; Matt Schumacher, Minority
    Press Assistant; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
    Communications, Outreach and Member Services.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
                  IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Burgess. I will ask all of our guests to take our seats
    and the subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will
    now come to order.
        I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.
        Administrator Rosekind, welcome to our hearing this
    morning. It is always good to have you here. We look forward to
    your testimony today. There are a lot of important things that
    we need to discuss, some things that have changed since our
    last visit here, with the passage of the highway bill. But we
    are grateful that you are here today.
        Your administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration, was established by Congress in 1970 to reduce
    deaths and injuries from motor vehicle accidents and help make
    our nation's roadways safer. The importance of the agency's
    mission cannot be understated. With 50 million vehicles
    recalled and a surge in traffic fatalities last year, it is
    clear that your work as very real and immediate societal and
    economic implications that affect the lives of virtually every
    American.
        The life-saving nature of NHTSA's mission requires Congress
    and this subcommittee, in particular, to ensure absolute
    compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards and
    their processes. It also requires us to monitor the agency's
    ability to keep pace with technology, keep pace with
    advancements in automotive systems that promise greater safety
    and mobility. We have seen, over the last few years, failure to
    comply with safety standards or a misunderstanding of a vehicle
    construction design can lead to delays in safety recalls,
    roadway fatalities, and preventable deaths.
        Based on our focus on auto safety, we have included many
    reforms in the safety title for which this subcommittee was
    responsible of the fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
    that was passed by Congress last year and signed into law last
    year. Among those reforms included to the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration was to implement the 17
    recommendations issued by the department of Transportation
    Office of Inspector General, following a comprehensive audit of
    the agency's internal processes. Those recommendations are
    intended to improve NHTSA's collection of vehicle safety data
    so that safety defects can be identified earlier and faulty
    cars can be removed from the road faster. The recommendations
    are also intended to help the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration keep pace with complex vehicle technology.
        NHTSA has pledged to implement all 17 recommendations by
    June 30th of this year. Following this hearing, I will send a
    request for a full breakdown of your administration's progress
    toward implementing all 17 recommendations.
        The recently passed highway bill also contains a number of
    other measures intended to protect the driving public,
    including improving NHTSA's safety recall processes, increasing
    the availability of vehicle defect information to consumers and
    keeping Congress apprised of the agency's activities through
    the submission of an annual agenda. Each of these reforms work
    together to ensure that the agency remains focused and
    dedicated to its mission of saving lives and that the cars
    American motorists are driving are indeed safe.
        We also must ensure absolute compliance with motor vehicle
    safety standards and processes from vehicle manufacturers,
    suppliers, and new entrants into the automotive industry. Their
    role in advancing vehicle safety and roadway safety is just as
    critical to the goal of reducing traffic fatalities and
    increasing safety for all roadway travelers. To that end, the
    recently passed highway bill contains provisions that
    strengthen, remedy, and repair obligations among automakers for
    vehicles under recall and requires greater accountability from
    dealers and rental car companies to ensure that consumers
    driving away from those lots are driving safe cars.
        In addition to the implementation of the FAST Act, there is
    much more to consider today. And I certainly do look forward to
    discussing the status of the ongoing Takata airbag recall.
        Back home in Texas, there was another tragic fatality tied
    to these airbags. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration established a coordinated remedy program in 2015
    to accelerate the replacement of defective Takata airbag
    inflators. Despite this program, the take rate, or the
    percentage of people issued a recall that take their vehicle in
    for servicing remains low.
        Always, I commit to you that we will do whatever possible
    for the public service campaign to make sure this word gets out
    to consumers.
        I hope to hear about your coordinated remedy program and
    what additional action NHTSA is planning to solve this problem.
    I also look forward to discussing how the agency is working
    with automakers to protect vehicles from cyber threats and how
    the agency is preparing for the industry's future of crash
    avoidance technology, vehicle-to-vehicle communications,
    autonomous cars and beyond.
        We provided for a significant increase in resources for the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the recently
    passed highway bill. Some of those are contingent upon meeting
    some of the performance metrics set forward in the OIG report.
        And then finally I would just like to say that you have
    been good about coming when we asked. You have been good about
    being straightforward with us in your answers. And for that, I
    am very appreciative. It just goes without saying everyone
    should know where their vehicle identification number is
    located on their car, lower left-hand of the windshield,
    driver's side doorpost, and that vehicle number can be entered
    into your database, safercar.gov, safe with an R car.gov and
    find out if their vehicle has been subject to a recall. It is
    important information. Our subcommittee vice chair actually had
    two recalls on his vehicle and it was delineated that way. So,
    I encourage people to check the car of yourself, for your loved
    one, or your child, someone for whom you are responsible
    because it is the responsible thing to do.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess

        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was
    established by Congress in 1970 to reduce deaths and injuries
    from motor vehicle accidents and to help make our nation's
    roadways safer. The importance of the agency's mission cannot
    be understated. With over 50 million vehicles recalled and a
    surge in traffic fatalities last year, it's clear that the work
    of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has very
    real and immediate societal and economic implications that
    affect the lives of virtually every American.
        The life-saving nature of NHTSA's mission requires Congress
    and this Subcommittee in particular, to ensure absolute
    compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards and
    processes. It also requires us to monitor the agency's ability
    to keep pace with technology advancements in automotive systems
    that promise greater safety and mobility. As we've seen over
    the last few years, a failure to comply with safety standards
    or a misunderstanding of vehicle construction and design leads
    to delays in safety recalls, roadway fatalities and other
    preventable incidents.
        Based on our focus on auto safety, we included many reforms
    in the safety title of the Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation Act that was passed by Congress and signed into
    law last year. Among those reforms included direction to NHTSA
    to implement 17 recommendations issued by the Department of
    Transportation Office of Inspector General following a
    comprehensive audit of the agency's internal processes. Those
    recommendations are intended to improve NHTSA's collection of
    vehicle safety data so that safety defects can be identified
    earlier and faulty cars can be removed from the road faster.
    The recommendations are also intended to help NHTSA keep pace
    with complex vehicle technology and rapidly advancing
    automotive systems. NHTSA has pledged to implement all 17
    recommendations by June 30th of this year. Following this
    hearing, I will send a request for a full breakdown of NHTSA's
    progress toward implementing all 17 recommendations.
        The FAST Act contains a number of other measures intended
    to protect the driving public, including: improving NHTSA's
    safety recall processes, increasing the availability of vehicle
    defect information to consumers, and keeping Congress apprised
    of the agency's activities through the submission of an annual
    agenda. Each of these reforms work together to ensure that the
    agency remains focused and dedicated to its mission of saving
    lives, and that the cars American motorists are driving are
    safe.
        We also must ensure absolute compliance with motor vehicle
    safety standards and processes from vehicle manufacturers,
    suppliers, and new entrants into the automotive industry. Their
    role in advancing vehicle and roadway safety is just as
    critical to the goal of reducing traffic fatalities and
    increasing safety for all roadway travelers. To that end, the
    FAST Act contains provisions that strengthen remedy and repair
    obligations among automakers for vehicles under recall, and
    requires greater accountability from dealers and rental car
    companies to ensure that consumers driving away from those lots
    are in safe cars.
        In addition to the implementation of the FAST Act, there is
    much more to consider today. I look forward to discussing the
    status of the ongoing Takata recalls. In my home state of Texas
    there was another tragic fatality tied to the Takata airbags.
    NHTSA established a coordinated remedy program in 2015 to
    accelerate the replacement of defective Takata airbag
    inflators. Despite this program, the take rate, or percentage
    of people issued a recall that take their vehicle in for
    servicing, remains low. Is it time for NHTSA to do a Public
    Service campaign? I hope to hear about the coordinated remedy
    program and what additional action NHTSA is planning to solve
    this problem without further delay.
        I also look forward to discussing how the agency is working
    with automakers to protect vehicles from cyber threats, and how
    the agency is preparing for the industry's future of crash-
    avoidance technology, vehicle-to-vehicle communications,
    autonomous cars, and beyond. We provided for a significant
    increase in resources for NHTSA in the FAST Act.
        With so much on the table, I hope to hear how NHTSA is
    maximizing the use of these resources. We provided a
    significant increase in the FAST Act. I have no doubt that
    NHTSA would like more funds. But funds are scarce and
    practically speaking I am not sure how much more funding
    Congress can realistically find.
        Administrator Rosekind, we welcome you to today's hearing
    and I look forward to continuing to work with you to make
    vehicles and roadways safer for our nation's motorists.

        Mr. Burgess. And I will yield to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois for an opening
    statement, 5 minutes, please.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate
    that really important public service announcement. Seriously,
    we need to encourage our constituents and our American citizens
    to do just that.
        So, I look forward to hearing today how NHTSA is addressing
    ongoing and emerging safety challenges. Last summer, I know you
    Administrator Rosekind were here to testify on the Takata
    airbag recalls. The fallout from these defective airbags
    continues, as we know. Toyota announced the recall of another
    60,000 vehicles this morning. So, these recalls keep on coming.
        Just last week it was a 17-year-old in Texas when her
    airbag ruptured during a low-speed accident. And consumers are
    rightly concerned by the expanding class of vehicles impacted
    by this and other defects that drove 2015 to be a record-
    setting year for auto recalls.
        In 2015, traffic fatalities also increased by nine percent,
    reversing years of progress. And we just can't have another
    year like 2015.
        NHTSA has made progress in some important areas. For
    instance, under a new rule, heavy vehicles will be required to
    have electronic stability control. At the same time, I would
    like to see more progress in other areas, such as rear seat
    belt reminders. As we work to improve safety, strong
    enforceable standards are vital and that is why I am concerned
    about reliance on non-specific voluntary standards.
        The Proactive Safety Principles released earlier this year
    set out some broad areas for improvement and I agree that the
    industry and NHTSA should be more proactive in improving
    safety, examining early warning, reporting data, increasing
    recall participation and enhancing cybersecurity but I worry
    that progress in these areas will be limited if we don't have
    enforceable standards. The lives of drivers, passengers, and
    those sharing the road are too important to rely on broad
    principles.
        We need to ramp up our approach to safety. I, along with
    ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, and several
    members of the subcommittee have introduced the Vehicle Safety
    Improvement Act and our bill would increase penalties for
    violations of safety standards, double NHTSA's safety funding,
    ensure the public is properly notified of safety problems, and
    enable NHTSA to better respond when recalls are necessary.
        Last year, Congress considered a surface transportation
    bill. And while I am glad that we finally did pass a long-term
    transportation bill on safety, this bill, I think, was largely
    a missed opportunity but we can fix that. Bills like VSIA are
    what the subcommittee would be advancing if we want to make
    meaningful progress toward reducing vehicle deaths in addition
    to current safety challenges, NHTSA and the subcommittee must
    think about the next generation of vehicles, vehicle-to-vehicle
    technology and automated driving, have the potential to improve
    highway safety but there is a lot to test and figure out.
        And let me just say that consumer privacy and strong
    security need to be built in to these technologies from the
    get-go. And NHTSA needs to be provided sufficient resources to
    adequately review these technologies before mass deployment.
        That gets to a broader point. NHTSA needs adequate funding
    if we want adequate safety. We get the government that we pay
    for. And when our consumer watchdogs don't have enough
    resources, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't keep pace
    with our safety needs. We need strong standards coupled with
    the resources to develop and enforce them. And without that, we
    aren't going to make the progress that we need.
        I welcome our witnesses. I look forward to your testimony.
        And I yield back, unless someone wants almost a minute. And
    I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
    gentlelady yields back.
        The chair recognizes the chair of the full committee, Mr.
    Upton, 5 minutes for an opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Auto safety, it is a matter of life and death. Yes, it is.
    There are not a lot issues as important as keeping Americans
    safe on the road. Oversight of NHTSA is an essential part of
    this subcommittee's work in protecting drivers across Michigan
    and across the country. And with over 250 million vehicles on
    the road transporting American families every day, today's
    oversight hearing offers an important opportunity to evaluate
    NHTSA's efforts in fulfilling its core mission of reducing
    traffic fatalities and making sure that our nation's roadways
    and vehicles are indeed safe.
        In the past couple years we have seen NHTSA face many
    challenges. The agency has struggled to collect and take action
    on meaningful vehicle safety data and major recalls have come
    sometimes way too late and often with an unclear message on how
    to fix the problem. We are sadly all too familiar with the
    tragic consequence of safety failures.
        The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, signed
    into law last year, included numerous reforms sponsored by
    members of this subcommittee to address some of those
    challenges and improve accountability, transparency, and
    efficiency at the agency. And I thank Chairman Burgess for his
    leadership in that effort, and I look forward to discussing the
    implementation progress of these reforms with the Administrator
    today.
        I would note that while the FAST Act represents a positive
    step forward in improving auto safety practices within NHTSA
    and across the auto industry at large, there is still more that
    can do, and should do. With low recall completion rates, the
    ongoing Takata recalls, and cybersecurity issues, other reforms
    and initiatives have to be considered to prevent further
    tragedies. One problem that we have seen repeatedly is an
    agency struggling to keep pace with next-generation automotive
    technologies. Being from the auto state, I understand how
    innovation and technological advances developed by the auto
    industry are introducing greater complexities into today's
    vehicles. It is tougher. It is.
        However, it is NHTSA's responsibility and obligation to
    stay on top of these developments and protect the driving
    public. Part of the problem is a lack of good testing and
    research facilities for connected and autonomous vehicles.
    Facilities like Michigan's American Center for Mobility at
    Willow Run are critical to policymakers' preparation and
    understanding of these advanced technologies, with faster
    consumer adoption. Until we have an accident-and-defect-free
    vehicle and roadway system, we can never put too much emphasis
    on safety. And you can't have safety without testing. I want to
    explore how we can move forward with critical testing
    facilities like Willow Run which can secure America's continued
    leadership in advanced automotive technologies but also protect
    American families on the road.
        The automotive industry is vital to Michigan's economy, as
    well as the country's. It drives innovation, job creation,
    productivity, and economic advancement. Robust auto safety is
    fundamental to that progress. We have to continue to work
    together to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our nation's
    motorists.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Auto safety--it's a matter of life and death. There are not
    many issues as important as keeping Americans safe on the road.
    Oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    is an essential part of this subcommittee's work in protecting
    drivers across Michigan and the United States. With over 250
    million vehicles on the road transporting American families
    everyday, today's oversight hearing offers an important
    opportunity to evaluate NHTSA's efforts in fulfilling its core
    mission of reducing traffic fatalities and making sure our
    nation's roadways and vehicles are safe.
        In the past few years we've seen NHTSA face many
    challenges. The agency has struggled to collect and take action
    on meaningful vehicle safety data, and major recalls have come
    too late and often with an unclear message on how to fix the
    problem. We are sadly all too familiar with the tragic
    consequences of safety failures.
        The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, signed
    into law last year, included numerous reforms sponsored by
    members of this subcommittee to address some of those
    challenges and improve accountability, transparency, and
    efficiency at the agency. I thank Chairman Burgess for his
    leadership in that effort, and I look forward to discussing the
    implementation progress of those reforms with Administrator
    Rosekind today.
        I should note that while the FAST Act represents a positive
    step forward in improving auto safety practices within NHTSA
    and across the auto industry at large, there is still much more
    that can, and should, be done. With low recall completion
    rates, the ongoing Takata recalls, and cyber security issues,
    other reforms and initiatives must be considered to prevent
    further tragedies.
        One problem we have seen repeatedly is an agency struggling
    to keep pace with next-generation automotive technologies.
    Being from the auto state, I understand how innovation and
    technological advancements developed by the auto industry are
    introducing greater complexities into today's vehicles.
    However, it's NHTSA's responsibility and obligation to stay on
    top of those developments and protect the driving public.
        Part of the problem is a lack of good testing and research
    facilities for connected and autonomous vehicles. Facilities
    like Michigan's American Center for Mobility at Willow Run are
    critical to policymakers' preparation and understanding of
    these advanced technologies, and faster consumer adoption.
    Until we have an accident- and- defect-free vehicle and roadway
    system, we can never put too much emphasis on safety. And you
    can't have safety without testing. I want to explore how we can
    move forward with critical testing facilities like Willow Run
    which will both secure America's continued leadership in
    advanced automotive technologies but also protect American
    families on the road.
        The automotive industry is vital to Michigan's economy, as
    well as the nation's. It drives innovation, job creation,
    productivity, and economic advancement. Robust auto safety is
    fundamental to that progress. We must all continue working
    together to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our nation's
    motorists.

        Mr. Upton. And I yield the balance of my time to the vice-
    chair of the committee, Marsha Blackburn.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we welcome
    you. We are delighted to have you here before us today.
        The chairman mentioned safety. It is of prime importance
    for us. We know that government can't guarantee 100 percent
    safety but we know it is a goal we all should be striving
    toward and we appreciate your willingness to work with us on
    safer vehicles and a safer environment for those.
        Chairman Burgess mentioned the Takata airbag hearing and we
    look forward to an update on that. We are continuing to look at
    that and to hear about this issue.
        The driverless cars, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication,
    I am hearing more about that and the automatic breaking
    systems. We know that these are items that have the potential
    for saving lives but we want to make certain that those
    communications are secure, that they are not going to be able
    to be compromised by malevolent actors. We are concerned about
    the hackings into these vehicles. So, we want to visit those
    issues with you.
        Chairman Upton mentioned the importance of the auto
    industry to Michigan, likewise in Tennessee with GM and Nissan,
    and Toyota. My constituents are concerned about the decisions
    that you make, the actions that you take, and we welcome you to
    the committee again and I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
    gentlelady yields back.
        The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone from New Jersey, 5 minutes for an
    opening statement, please.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman, for calling this hearing
    so that we can discuss NHTSA's critical mission of making our
    roads safer and how Congress can best support that mission. It
    is an exciting time in the automotive world right now from
    vehicle-to-vehicle communication, to self-parking cars, to
    automatic braking. It seems we are in the midst of a major
    technological shift in the way we drive our cars. And while
    some may want to focus this hearing on the future of the
    automobile and I do want to hear that NHTSA and industry have
    the tools and skills necessary to deal with the ever-changing
    landscape, but we must address the deficiencies that already
    are plaguing this industry.
        Over the last several years, we have seen massive and
    highly publicized recalls for general motors ignition switches,
    Takata airbags, and Toyota unintended acceleration.
    Unfortunately, 2015 was another record-setting year for auto
    recalls which erodes the public trust and the underlying
    defects put people in danger.
        Just last night, we learned that yet another death had been
    linked to a faulty Takata airbag. And while some recalls may
    always occur, industry must take responsibility for its own
    failures and do more to prevent safety deficiencies from
    putting the public at risk. NHTSA also must stay ahead of the
    curve on safety and that starts with having the willingness and
    conviction to effect real change, both within NHTSA and
    throughout the industry.
        Last year was not only a record-setting year on recalls, we
    also, unfortunately, saw a rise in traffic fatalities.
    According to NHTSA projections, deaths increased 9.3 percent to
    26,000 people in the first 9 months of 2015, compared with the
    same period in 2014. There was also a 30 percent rise in
    serious injuries in the first half of 2015, compared with the
    first half of 2014, up to nearly 2.3 million serious injuries.
        In January, the Department of Transportation announced an
    agreement on safety principles between NHTSA and 18 major auto
    manufacturers. While the agreement covers broad areas of auto
    safety, it is severely lacking in meaningful details. It is
    nothing more than an agreement to try to agree in the future.
    And I also have serious reservations about the closed door
    process by which this agreement was drafted and finalized and
    it concerns me that it lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure
    that auto makers follow through on their commitments, as vague
    as they may be.
        In the wake of an auto emissions scandal, a climbing recall
    rate, and rising traffic fatalities, now is the time for
    greater accountability, greater transparency, and better
    communication between automakers and the agency charged with
    regulating them, as well as the public, not just a set of
    voluntary principles.
         Last year, Congress passed a transportation funding bill,
    the FAST Act. That legislation was a missed opportunity to
    address accountability, transparency, and communications. It
    also should have dealt with used car safety, speeding up the
    recall process, and eliminating regional recalls, among other
    things.
        The Vehicle Safety Improvement Act of 2015, a bill that
    Ranking Member Schakowsky mentioned and that I co-sponsored
    last year, would make those changes and a lot more. Our bill is
    a starting point to make sure that the millions of drivers and
    passengers on our roads are kept safe.
        This year is the 50th anniversary of the National Traffic
    and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the law that created
    NHTSA with its mission of reducing deaths, injuries, and
    economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The Auto
    Alliance has stated that fatalities, as a share of miles
    traveled, are down 80 percent since the law's passage but we
    need to continue that legacy and not move backwards. We are on
    our way towards incredible advances in the automotive space but
    we need to ensure that consumers get there safely.
        And I look forward to continuing our discussion about how
    best to move forward on auto safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        And that concludes members' opening statements. And the
    chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        And again, thanks to all of our witnesses on both panels
    for being here today and taking the time to testify before the
    subcommittee. We will have two panels. Each panel of witnesses
    will have an opportunity to give an opening statement, followed
    by questions from the members.
        Once we conclude the questions on the first panel, there
    will be a brief, underscore brief, recess to set up for the
    second panel.
        And our witness panel for today's panel includes, on the
    first panel, Dr. Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And Mr.
    Rosekind, again, thank you. We appreciate your being here
    today. We appreciate your willingness to be available to
    members of the subcommittee. We appreciate your making
    available coming to your facility and looking to see what you
    and your fine folks do on a daily basis. You are now recognized
    for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF MR. MARK ROSEKIND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                     TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Rosekind. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    update you on the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration's efforts to save lives, prevent crashes, and
    reduce the economic toll of fatalities on our roads.
        The last year was one of the most eventful in NHTSA's 5-
    decade history and this year promises to be just as
    significant.
        In road safety, we face a large and tragically growing
    challenge. We lost 32,675 on American roads in 2014. And as you
    have all cited, our early estimates show that traffic
    fatalities appear to have grown up by 9 percent in 2015. I
    believe that the only acceptable goal is zero traffic deaths.
    Every American should be able to drive, ride, or walk to their
    destination safely every time. That is the goal that drives our
    work.
        Earlier this year, Secretary Foxx announced the President's
    proposed $1.2 billion budget for NHTSA that includes important
    investment in NHTSA's behavioral safety efforts and for
    accelerating safety technologies, such as vehicle automation.
    This funding will further support our efforts to build on the
    progress we have already made in revamping our defects
    investigations program. I strongly urge your support for the
    President's budget proposal.
        I am going to begin with a topic that receives far less
    public attention than it is due--human behavior on the roads. A
    human choice or error is responsible for 94 percent of all
    crashes. Through decades of success, we know there are highly
    effective methods to combat these unsafe behaviors but we also
    know that simply doing more of the same will not get the job
    done.
        In a series of 1-day traffic safety summits across the
    country this year, we challenge stakeholders to develop new
    ideas and innovative approaches to make our roads safer. Those
    efforts will continue as we develop short- and long-term
    strategies to eliminate traffic fatalities. NHTSA is also
    continuing to act on multiple fronts to raise the level of
    safety in the vehicles that are already on our roads. Through
    regulation, NHTSA has issued a final rule requiring electronic
    stability control on heavy vehicles and proposed rules to
    protect consumers from unsafe novelty motorcycle helmets and to
    upgrade rear impact guards on trucks and trailers. We are also
    working on a rule to require the installation of speed limiters
    on heavy vehicles and a rule on vehicle-to-vehicle
    communications, a technology that could prevent tens of
    thousands of crashes every year.
        NHTSA is also leading on vehicle safety beyond the
    regulatory process. Last month, we joined auto manufacturers to
    announce a historic commitment to put automatic emergency
    braking in more than 99 percent of all new cars by 2022. This
    agreement will make this technology standard 3 years faster
    than if the agency had tried to achieve the same goal only
    through the regulatory process, preventing thousands of crashes
    and saving lives.
        Our proposed update to the 5 star safety ratings program
    will put more information about vehicle safety in the hands of
    car buyers. The updates add tougher crash tests, will for the
    first time rate vehicles on crash avoidance and will rate
    vehicles in how well they prevent and mitigate the harm of
    pedestrian impacts.
        NHTSA is leaning forward on autonomous vehicle technology.
    This year, we will offer manufacturer operational deployment
    guidance that outlines how autonomous vehicles should perform
    on the roads. We will work with partners to provide model state
    policy and we will identify new tools and authorities that
    NHTSA may need so that we can be sure we meet our goal of
    encouraging safe innovation.
        While we look to the future, we must also maintain our
    focus on safety today. In 2015, NHTSA initiated a record-
    setting nearly 900 recall campaigns affecting about 51 million
    vehicles and we also imposed record-setting penalties.
        NHTSA has launched an unprecedented effort to coordinate
    and accelerate the Takata recalls currently totaling 28.8
    million airbag inflators. Our coordinated remedy program issued
    to Takata and the affected automakers accelerated the recall
    remedy process by 2 years or more. This is, perhaps, the most
    aggressive use of the agency's enforcement authority in its
    history.
        While identifying defects and recalling vehicles is an
    important safety mission, we would prefer to avoid the problems
    in the first place. In January, Secretary Foxx announced an
    historic agreement with 18 auto manufacturers on a series of
    concrete commitments to safety, including targeting 100 percent
    remedy completion rates. This agreement could change the safety
    conversation from reactive to proactive, helping us catch
    issues sooner or prevent them from happening at all.
        We were recently, and you have all mentioned this,
    tragically reminded just how urgent this work is. Two weeks ago
    today, a 17-year-old driver lost her life after the Takata
    airbag inflator in her car ruptured after a crash near Houston.
    The local sheriff said that if it weren't for the rupture, she
    would have been able to walk away from that crash. The inflator
    in her vehicle had already been recalled but the repair had not
    been completed. We all play a role in making sure another
    tragedy like this just doesn't happen again.
        We are going to hear NHTSA talk a lot in the next year
    about proactive safety, about the need for all of us with a
    role in protecting the public to make safety our highest
    priority. Doing so will require new ways of thinking for NHTSA,
    for automakers and suppliers, for dealers, for safety
    advocates, and for the public.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I am pleased to
    answer your questions.
        [The statement by Mr. Rosekind follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman for the
    testimony.
        I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for
    questions. Again, I appreciate your being here today.
        Can you tell us, since this last incident was so recent,
    and I don't know that I have seen any sort of official write-up
    of what occurred, but the airbag unit in question was under
    recall but what was the difficulty in getting the recall
    information to the end user?
        Mr. Rosekind. Specific to that case, that was a 2011 recall
    actually for a different manufacturing defect. The manufacturer
    reported sending at least six notices to the family. The family
    reports not receiving any of them and so that is being
    investigated right now.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, it certainly seems like we have
    uncovered a weak spot in what should be the vehicle
    notification and the user getting back to get the problem taken
    care of.
        Is this a problem because this was a second or third owner
    or was this the original owner of the car?
        Mr. Rosekind. We believe it was a used vehicle. So,
    multiple owners of the vehicle. And you have hit on it, which
    is as much as currently being done to notify people, it is not
    enough. And so we have been working with the automakers, we
    have had our own programs. We have just established with the
    independent monitor 19 new strategies, more robust ones for the
    automakers in Takata to go after informing people that they are
    available.
        We have our own, about a dozen activities that are going on
    with NHTSA, including a new national campaign, safe cars save
    lives, many different things. In spite of those, what we know
    is it has not been enough.
        I do want to thank you because every time you have been so
    good about mentioning safercar.gov. And I will just say in the
    last fatality, we saw a spike from 50,000 to 175,000 checks of
    peoples' VIN numbers. So, we know that every time we make
    people aware, they pay attention and that has the opportunity
    to save more lives. I thank you. You have been so good about
    doing that.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, let me ask you a question, because I
    think it was actually in this recently passed highway bill that
    we did about a pilot program for state notification to
    consumers. In the State of Texas every year I have got to take
    my car somewhere and the guy checks the turn signal. And I am
    happy to comply with it because then I can drive my car for
    another year without getting a traffic ticket. Is there any way
    to add the compliance with recalls at the state level as part
    of the armamentarium of things that they check, along with
    pollution and turn signals and tire wear? Is it possible to add
    this information as well?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes and thank you for the FAST Act because
    this is just one example of one of the elements that could help
    promote better recalls. What you are identifying is a pilot
    program. Right now there is no procedure. There is no
    technology or funding, basically, to figure out how to go and
    do this. When you get your car registered, there is no way to
    notify people.
        So, what is great about the pilot program, up to six states
    can work with us to figure out what the procedures need to be,
    what technology needs to be in place, and basically how the
    procedures are going to go to make sure that that happens
    correctly.
        And just to give you a feel, our VIN lookup is for
    consumers, one person at a time. Here, we have already started
    interacting with states and with the DMVs. You are looking at
    hundreds of thousands of look ups potentially daily to get that
    work done. We have to figure out how to do it. It could be a
    great touch point to inform people.
        Mr. Burgess. Somehow, when you make it important to people,
    it can involve money and, instead of making it punitive, if
    there was a proactive way, and this of course is probably a
    question I need to ask the manufacturers, actually an incentive
    program to comply with a vehicle safety recall if one has been
    identified. And I could encourage, if there are any
    manufacturers who are listening today to consider that approach
    as well.
        I have got to ask you this because a little known fact,
    because I am also chair of the motorcycle caucus and you
    mentioned novelty motorcycle helmet problems. Can you tell me
    what the problem is there? I was not aware of that.
        Mr. Rosekind. There is a group of manufacturers that put
    out a novelty helmet that does not meet the standard. And so
    basically, people put the helmet on thinking that they are
    protecting themselves and it does not.
        Mr. Burgess. And these are sold as motorcycle helmets?
        Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. And so if you didn't know what
    you were buying and you just thought it looked different and
    cool, thinking you were getting the same protection, you would
    not be.
        Mr. Burgess. Is there a requirement that a motorcycle
    helmet be placard? Would there be any way for a consumer to
    know this is a NHTSA-approved, or a safety-approved device they
    have purchased?
        Mr. Rosekind. And there is a DOT label so that you would
    know that it is correct. But these are manufactured and put out
    there in certain places and so we are acting to try and take
    care of that.
        Mr. Burgess. But no label would be affixed to those. It is
    not that there is a counterfeit label, there is no label.
        Mr. Rosekind. It is different, depending on how people are
    producing them. Most often, there is no label. And if people
    don't know that they should be looking for that, they just
    think it is a helmet that probably should be protecting them.
        Mr. Burgess. All right. Well, full-service subcommittee, I
    learned something new today and I hope our motorcycle public is
    paying attention and will only buy official helmets.
        I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, 5
    minutes for questions, please.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Dr.
    Rosekind.
        The massive ongoing recalls of Takata airbags have remained
    a huge and complicated problem. And as was mentioned just
    yesterday, NHTSA announced that 85 million more Takata airbags
    could be recalled, unless Takata can prove that they are safe.
        Dr. Rosekind, questions about Takata inflators are endless.
    For example, consumers want to know how we can get accurate
    information to better understand which inflators are going into
    what cars. And recently, NHTSA stated that if a car company
    cannot meet the requirement to acquire a sufficient supply of
    remedy parts, the company should continue its ``like for like''
    replacing older defective airbags with newer but identical
    bags.
        So, my questions are these. Does that mean that the company
    will be putting a potentially defective airbag into a car with
    the hope that it is better just because it is newer? And is the
    consumer told this important information at the time that the
    airbag is replaced?
        Mr. Rosekind. So, I need to begin by making sure everybody
    understand since their inception, 42,000 lives have been saved
    by airbags. That is the difficulty of this situation. A piece
    of safety equipment is putting people at risk.
        So, what is now known, based on testing, is there are at
    least five different factors that create the risk about a
    rupture that has to do with temperature, moisture, time, the
    driver versus passenger side, and whether it has desiccant or
    not, which is a moisture-absorbing additive that can be placed
    in there.
        So, one of the issues that you are talking about is that,
    at this point, we are only seeing ruptures at 7 \1/2\ years.
    And that is with all the other risk factors involved as well.
        So, what you are talking about is right now with supplies,
    there are a certain number that are being replaced that have at
    least a 7 \1/2\ year timespan available for that safety to
    protect people in the vehicle.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, is the consumer promised a later date
    to come in and get a permanent remedy?
        Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. And you are hitting, in fact,
    when we announced this recall, the hardest part, frankly, is
    you have hit on one of the most difficult things, is you are
    talking about people potentially having to come twice. Because
    what you are describing is an interim remedy that will provide
    more safety but they are going to have to come back for a
    second time. This is why we have emphasized the 100 percent
    because you don't want people to get that first one and think
    they are done.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Right. There are news reports that indicate
    that companies other than Takata are making replacement
    airbags. And are those suppliers making the inflators to the
    old specifications or the new ones? And are these companies
    required to make the inflators without ammonium nitrate?
        Mr. Rosekind. There are three other manufacturers, Autoliv,
    Daicel, and TRW. They now produce about 70 percent of the
    inflators that are being currently produced for replacement.
    None of them use ammonium nitrate.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        Mr. Rosekind. None of them have had any safety problems
    identified.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And how does a consumer know if her car's
    replacement airbag is a replica of the airbag that it was made
    to replace and similarly, how does the consumer know whether
    the new airbag she got in the last 2 years needs to be
    replaced? And finally, how does she know whether the new one
    contains ammonium nitrate-based propellants?
        Mr. Rosekind. The simplest thing would be to go to
    safercar.gov, do the VIN lookup, see whether or not your
    vehicle is under a recall. If you go in and a dealer tells you
    that it is the interim remedy, then you would know that you are
    going to have to be called back again for that second fix.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Safercar.gov.
        I am troubled by the report that some auto manufacturers
    may still be selling new vehicles with potentially defective
    Takata inflators. What is NHTSA doing to ensure that all new
    cars are free of these airbags?
        Mr. Rosekind. Well, it would be illegal to sell a known
    defect in a new car. So, if you are aware of anything, let us
    know because that is something we would go and investigate. So,
    there should be no vehicles. Again, there are some that are
    getting like for like. Right now the recalls, I think, go back
    to 2014 but all those are being tracked because of that 7 \1/2\
    year rupture timeline.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So you are unaware of any reports that some
    auto manufacturers are doing that. Is that what you were
    saying? You said I should inform you but have you heard that as
    well?
        Mr. Rosekind. Right.
        Ms. Schakowsky. No, you have not.
        Mr. Rosekind. Unless it is something we know about,
    because, again, there are some that haven't been recalled
    because of the time.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        Mr. Rosekind. But otherwise, we are not aware of any.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK, thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
    the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, 5 minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And sir, thank you for being here and thank you for serving
    the country in your capacity.
        Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing for us to
    continue our committee's oversight of NHTSA and the review of
    related safety issues within the automotive industry.
        I would especially like to thank the chairman and committee
    for their support and work to include my amendment in the FAST
    Act. I believe it takes an important step forward to improve
    vehicle safety by requiring automakers to provide more
    information about defective components or parts involved in
    safety recalls. Sharing defective part numbers and other
    identifiable information with recyclers will improve safety and
    aid NHTSA in its goal to improve recall completion rates.
        Sir, Section 24(11)(6) of the FAST Act requires automakers
    to furnish additional information in their 575 reports, such as
    the name of the component, a description of the component and
    the part number. Do you have any information what is the status
    of implementation of this section?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes, an important component, if you will, of
    that Act. And so name, description, and part number already
    underway to include that according to what is in the FAST Act.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK and do you know, does it require a
    rulemaking?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. All right. And as NHTSA reached out to
    stakeholders, such as the Automotive Recyclers Association for
    technical assistance and input on implementing this section?
        Mr. Rosekind. And they have been very forthcoming. They
    have already come to meet with us to help us be more explicit
    about what needs to get done.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Good. And you feel like that is a good
    relationship?
        Mr. Rosekind. Very productive interactions.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK, great. Has any information been received
    from the OEMs under this section of the new law?
        Mr. Rosekind. Any?
        Mr. Kinzinger. Any new information? Any information been
    received from them under this?
        Mr. Rosekind. We are still in the produce it phase.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
        Mr. Rosekind. But we will interact with them as well to
    make sure that what we produce is something they can fulfill.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And do you have any idea like kind of the
    timeline on this right now?
        Mr. Rosekind. I mean tell you for sure we will meet the
    FAST Act requirement.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And then how will the information
    supplied through this section of the law be available to the
    public or the stakeholders? I mean ideally, are you going to
    have it like a static PDF form, electronic database? Is there
    anything that you foresee?
        Mr. Rosekind. Well and that is the part that is trying to
    be figured out.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
        Mr. Rosekind. And that is not just with the recyclers. But
    again, the form that we asked the OEMs to provide that
    information obviously can facilitate how we can make that
    information available. That is the part that is being worked on
    now.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK, good. Well, I appreciate you all working
    on it. My office will continue to ensure that everything is
    going correctly and appreciate your service.
        Mr. Chairman, that is all I have for this witness. I
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
    the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Clarke from New York, 5 minutes.
    Your questions, please.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking
    member.
        Thank you, Dr. Rosekind for coming in today. Am I
    pronouncing your name correctly?
        Mr. Rosekind. Rosekind.
        Ms. Clarke. Rosekind. OK. That was the Brooklyn
    pronunciation.
        I think it is safe to assume that cars are going to
    continue to come equipped with more technological features
    going forward. Connections exist through popular telematic
    systems, such as OnStar and built-in entertainment and
    navigation systems. But as we have heard in numerous hearings
    in this subcommittee, covering different aspects of the
    internet of things, if a product can connect to the internet,
    that product is going to be a target for hackers.
        Dr. Rosekind, what is NHTSA doing to ensure that the
    growing number of connected features in cars don't become new
    entry points for hackers? What are the consequences for
    automakers that do not have robust cybersecurity? And does
    NHTSA have plans to pursue a rulemaking on cybersecurity?
        Mr. Rosekind. So, let me start with the consequences. Last
    July, there was a highly visible hack of a Jeep, which was at
    least planned. So, there has been no malicious hack of any
    vehicle yet. But we highlighted that it is no longer a concept.
    It is real. And I point that out because without any change in
    our authorities, et cetera, within days a defect was called and
    a recall was underway. So, we are going to act aggressively and
    get on those when possible.
        But you are bringing up an issue which is the more
    connected everything is, the more cybersecurity becomes
    critical. NHTSA has actually been on this since 2012, where we
    created an office specifically focused on it. This is my chance
    to thank everybody for their support in the FAST Act.
        We have about seven engineers on this, four in Washington,
    three in Ohio. The FAST Act is going to let us add up to 20 new
    engineers to deal with this and they are looking at a broad
    range from how you protect things to one of our recent focus on
    research is looking specifically at what are the data elements
    you would actually have to collect to see that hacking attempts
    were ongoing. And so there is a very active research program
    that is going on, as well as a lot of others.
        We have published a cybersecurity piece on our policy. We
    are developing some new program elements. January, we held a
    meeting with over 300 folks coming together, manufacturers, as
    well as independent researchers to get to look at these sorts
    of things.
        Specifically to your question, this is an area where we
    need to figure out to how to sort of cut that middle line,
    which is we talk about nimble and flexible for cybersecurity.
    If you come out with a rule today, by tomorrow, it could be out
    of date. And yet at the same time, you need some best practices
    and potentially rules to establish certain kinds of hard
    protections and things. So, I think this is an area that you
    are going to have see a variety of different techniques used to
    get the full kind of protection the American public is going to
    expect.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. As you refer to the Jeep experiment
    with the two researchers, Dr. Rosekind, when it comes to cars,
    cybersecurity isn't about data. It can really be about safety
    issues, can't it? A joint bulletin that NHTSA released with the
    FBI a month ago said that consumers should take appropriate
    steps to minimize risk with respect to hacking. Can you explain
    what some of those steps might be?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes, and thank you because you are right, our
    focus is primarily on the safety. And that hack that was done
    on the Jeep last July specifically dealt with control systems
    of the vehicle and that is where the safety concern comes.
        And yes, thanks for acknowledging the collaboration with
    the FBI and putting that out. And that had a lot of
    straightforward things that all of us can do, which is just be
    careful about what you hook up to your entertainment systems.
    So that Jeep hack actually went through their entertainment
    system, for example.
        And I think all of us basically can think about all the
    things that we attach to our vehicles, whether you are nowadays
    a huge number connected to the web, if you are out there
    searching, you have a chance not just for a virus come and be
    difficult for you but literally to get into your systems.
        So, there is a nice list of things in that press release
    that was put out, basically cautioning people. If you think
    about it, you would want to do the same things you would do for
    your home computer to protect yourself, to think about your car
    in the same way.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
    the gentlelady.
        The chair recognizes gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks,
    5 minutes for questions, please.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I consider my district actually the auto auction capital of
    the United States. Car Auction Services, which is headquartered
    in my district is the second largest auto auction company in
    North America, selling over four million vehicles a year,
    employs 14,000 people in all 50 states. And I also, in north of
    Indianapolis, in Carmel, have NextGear Capital, just expanding
    their headquarters in Carmel. And I have been to their facility
    where they serve over 20,000 auto dealers who depend on them
    for $13 billion in capital to fund their auction purchases.
        They tell me they, of course, want to help protect people
    by ensuring that they know that their customers know of car
    defects before they buy. But right now, safercar.gov only
    allows customers to search VIN numbers one at a time to check
    for recalls. With over 9 million cars sold at auction every
    year, auto auctions simply don't have the manpower or the
    resources to tediously input every single number. And so by
    allowing auto auctions to run every car in their lot for recall
    notices in one query, the consumer would be more equipped to
    make better decisions, higher successful recall rates and,
    ultimately fewer accidents on the road.
        And, obviously, we have been talking about the FAST Act
    passed last year and it studied the feasibility of searching
    multiple VIN numbers at the same time and the feasibility of
    making the search mechanism for the event. Can you give me an
    update on the progress you have made and NHTSA's made with
    respect to the search of multiple numbers at once and what
    hurdles do you still face?
        Mr. Rosekind. And actually, you have just described them,
    which is the NHTSA lookup is a tool for consumers. And we don't
    even actually maintain a database. That is really just tapping
    the auto manufacturers who control their VIN databases.
        So, we know there is a great need and interest in having
    what is called batch or bulk lookups so that you could do it as
    a group. And the auction houses, new dealerships, all kinds of
    folks would really benefit by that. So, we have met with folks
    and I think the biggest thing that we are seeing is the
    technology challenge, as you are talking about, the creation of
    some mechanism. As I just said we don't even keep the database,
    we go to the manufacturers. How would you create a mechanism,
    basically, technologically so you could have those bulk
    requests going to multiple manufacturers in a very short time
    frame and providing that bulk answer, basically, to whomever
    the requestor is.
        I think at most, at this point, is the technology challenge
    and, clearly, how it would get funded is unclear as well.
    Everybody is sort of pointing to that.
        There are three commercial entities that exist that do
    that. Carfax is one of them. I can get you the other two, if
    you would like.
        And so we are looking. We met in July, again, frankly, to
    talk about what would happen. I think the technology is the
    biggest piece right now because no one quite has an answer of
    how to pull that off.
        Mrs. Brooks. But isn't part of our challenge that we have
    so many people who do purchase vehicles that are moving through
    the auto auctions? And so consumers, it is very, very difficult
    for them to know if they are getting one of these cars that has
    one of these problems.
        Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely, and just two things. One is when
    I say there is a technological challenge, that doesn't mean we
    aren't off of it. It actually means that we are trying to be
    more aggressive to figure out how could you fix that issue. And
    you have hit on another issue, which the FAST Act addressed for
    rental cars. But in used cars, people can still sell those
    without having the recall remedied. So, that is one of the ways
    to get to those.
        And that is why I say we met in July and we are still
    meeting with them to see if we can figure out what the
    technological solution could be.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK. I certainly hope that some of your
    engineers working on cyber issues, may be with all of that
    brainpower of those engineers, maybe can also be tasked to have
    that as a topic.
        I want to turn to a different topic right now. Last year or
    this past month, rather, a Griffith High School boys basketball
    team was traveling to a semi-state championship. A driver
    sideswiped their bus and the bus flipped and overturned, as
    they were on the way to their semi-state game. None of the
    children were seriously injured. However, it reminds us about
    the importance of getting seatbelts on school buses.
        And last September, you announced a series of steps
    designed to move the nation toward providing more seatbelts to
    students on school buses. Can you please tell us about the
    research projects, the data collection, stakeholder outreach,
    what is going on with respect to this project?
        Mr. Rosekind. I can't thank you enough for raising that
    question. There are so many headlines that people want to talk
    about. That is one for 4 decades there has been debate out
    putting seatbelts on school buses. And yes, it is a clear
    departure for NHTSA to come out and basically say three-point
    belts would add--the big yellow bus is the safest way to get to
    and from. Can you make it safer? Absolutely. So, we have
    already had a 1-day meeting to talk about how to make that
    happen. We have identified the fact that it is not just about
    seatbelts on the bus, it is around the bus. So, we are looking
    at everything from the red lights on the arms to guards that
    help people pass in front.
        We are looking at all those different things, including our
    most recent meeting about a month ago, where we pulled the six
    states that do have laws related to seatbelts in to figure out
    what they are doing and how we could helpfully try and scale
    that to the rest of the country.
        So, we are on that trying to figure out anything we can do
    to support three-point seatbelts on school buses.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you for your service. My time is up. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
    gentlelady yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5
    minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As others have mentioned today, in January DOT and 18
    automakers reached an agreement known as the Proactive Safety
    Principles and I am glad to see auto manufacturers and DOT try
    to work proactively on vehicle safety. But frankly, I have
    doubts about these principles.
        The principles are simply a promise to try to work together
    in the future. There is no substance. And even if there were,
    there is no enforcement to ensure that the automakers keep
    their commitments. So, I wanted to ask you, Dr. Rosekind, can
    you assure me that these principles are meaningful in some way,
    that these principles are more than a PR stunt to shift the
    focus away from the major safety crisis of the past few years?
        Mr. Rosekind. And you are absolutely correct, it is not a
    regulation and they are not enforceable. And I can tell you in
    April we had a meeting for the very first time to discuss with
    the automakers 100 percent recall completion rate as a target.
        That is now included in that Proactive Principle. Never
    before has--everyone has always talked about let's get 75
    percent because that is the average. We are now talking about
    100 percent should be that target. That is in there. Can
    everybody do more? Absolutely, but now we have a new target
    that is already in there.
        I think the automatic emergency braking that we see happen
    is another proactive one and in the cybersecurity area,
    Chrysler actually, in May, is having their own 2-day just
    industry meeting to focus on things. That wasn't intended to be
    a regulation. It wasn't intended for enforcement. We are going
    to use all the enforcement and regulatory authority we have. We
    are not giving anything up.
        My concern is the 32,675 and that we are looking at a nine
    percent increase this year. And we all know if we keep doing
    the same thing, we cannot expect a different outcome.
        So, we will continue doing everything we know that works.
    We will figure out ways to do it better but NHTSA is looking
    for every other tool that we can find that could help save a
    life.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. But in addition, and I appreciate
    that because I think that even though you are admitting that
    there is no enforcement mechanisms per se, that you are going
    to try to use other measure that you have to do that.
        In addition to the lack of enforcement, though, I also have
    reservations about the closed door process that NHTSA has been
    engaging with recently. With regard to the Proactive Safety
    Principles, were any auto safety advocates directly involved in
    crafting the principles?
        Mr. Rosekind. That process started on December first when
    Secretary Foxx called all the COs in because of all the recall
    and safety problems going on in the industry. It was clearly
    beyond just breaking issues and issue of the safety culture in
    the industry. He called them in and said we need to do
    something different. And 6 weeks later, that agreement emerged
    among them, basically, to come up with these principles in
    those four areas. So, that started with a meeting with the
    automakers. Six weeks later, through the holidays, frankly, is
    when it actually came together. So, there was, again, there was
    not a public process. That was come in, what are you going to
    change? And that was agreement that came together.
        And I will say it again. It is not intended to be a
    regulation. It is not intended to be enforcement but everybody
    is watching and we already have some concrete things like that
    agreement looking to target 100 percent completion. Activity is
    already going on. Cybersecurity already being advanced. We have
    a safety meeting coming up, next week, basically, where we are
    going to be looking at how to take aviation lessons learned and
    apply them to the auto industry. So, in that agreement, it
    talks about anonymous sharing of safety data. That meeting to
    start that process is actually happening next Friday. They are
    concrete actions and we are watching.
        Mr. Pallone. So, I mean there weren't any auto safety
    advocates directly involved. But I mean how are you going to
    try to get them involved? What are you going to do?
        Mr. Rosekind. That agreement is public. It is out there.
    The activities, basically, are aware. So, anybody can have
    input into what is going on. And that, again, was an agreement
    of the manufacturers to proactively move things forward.
        Mr. Pallone. So, I mean there wasn't any public comment
    period for the Proactive Safety Principles.
        Mr. Rosekind. It was not a regulation. It is not intended
    to be enforced.
        Mr. Pallone. No, I understand. I mean I appreciate your
    honesty about lack of enforcement, lack of involvement of the
    auto safety advocates. Lack of a comment period. I mean I don't
    think that is good but I appreciate your honesty.
        But how are we going to--we don't want to have similar
    agreements like this in the future. I mean I think it is
    important to involve the public safety advocates. It is
    important to have public comments, a public comment period
    prior to finalization. So, can you make some commitment to us
    that in the future you will try to do that or what can you tell
    us that makes me feel a little better about the lack of all
    this?
        Mr. Rosekind. Well, NHTSA is going to look for all the
    tools that are available. And that means we are going to have
    as much interaction with a full range of safety advocates for
    all the activities that are going on. And, frankly, some of the
    process have clear elements where notice in comment for
    rulemaking, there are opportunities for everybody to get
    involved in the public docket, et cetera. There are always
    going to be other activities that go on that certain groups
    aren't going to be involved in.
        Mr. Pallone. I guess my concern--I know that my time has
    run out, Mr. Chairman--is that these voluntary good practices
    on the part of business are certainly something we hope for but
    the rulemaking process exists for a reason and mandatory safety
    standards have prevented more than 600,000 deaths since the
    1960s.
        So, I don't want the agency moving away from mandatory
    standards. That is my concern.
        Mr. Rosekind. And that is why I can state absolutely
    emphatically that we will continue to regulate and enforce as
    we need to and we are looking at and we want to expand and add
    to our tool set that we can try and see progress on safety.
        Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
    Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    Administrator Rosekind for testifying.
        It is my understanding that what is sometimes called the
    One Nation Program, referring to fuel economy regulations was
    intended to coordinate or harmonize various federal, state, and
    state regulations as much as possible. Since there are
    effectively three separate sets of regulations for EPA, NHTSA
    and state regulation, it has come to my attention that
    differences between even the federal programs make compliance
    more difficult.
        First, do you agree that the development of the One Nation
    Program was to provide consistency and certainly for
    automakers?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes, among those three groups that you
    highlighted, NHTSA, EPA and especially the California Air
    Resource Board.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Are you aware of the differences between
    programs that affects stringency and possible compliance?
        Mr. Rosekind. Are there specific ones?
        Mr. Guthrie. Well one, if I am not mistaken, EPA credits
    can have a useable life of up to 10 years versus NHTSA credits
    have an up to 5 year of life. So, because of that difference,
    then somebody could be--an EPA credit could be compliant with
    EPA but not compliant with NHTSA. Is that a conflict?
        Do you see that or is that something you are working
    through?
        Mr. Rosekind. Two things. One is I would say that if there
    is a specific instance that somebody is sort of questioning
    where that inconsistency is, I would love to see that so we can
    see what is actually going on there.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Mr. Rosekind. But the other thing, to the question about
    consistency more generally is there is a mid-term review that
    is coming up, where we will be putting out a technical
    assessment report so that we can basically take a look at how
    that is doing and a draft report will come out for exactly
    those kinds of comments that people can address.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. That was a specific instance. Somebody
    could come to me and say that they have been written up for
    being compliant with one or the other but they look at the
    standard and say they were----
        Mr. Rosekind. Importantly, in that mid-term review, there
    will be a draft that everybody can comment.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, we will follow-up specific on that, then.
        So, shifting to recalls and focusing on the millions of
    motorists and occupants who are driving or riding in vehicles
    under open recall, and what is the status of the new recall
    media campaign you announced last September?
        Mr. Rosekind. So, there have actually been a variety of
    activities going on. That one is Safe Cars Save Lives and we
    are doing media buys. And NHTSA is the agency that has Click It
    or Ticket; Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over; You Drive, You Text,
    You Pay. We have these national campaigns we do. This is a new
    one focused specifically on recalls.
        The other two things I will just mention quickly are,
    besides our activities going on, the automobile associations
    are doing research and looking at other mechanisms, things like
    contacting the insurance companies so that when you not just
    register your card but when you touch your insurance company,
    another touch point. And then the independent monitor with us
    is also working with Takata and all the manufacturers affected.
    As part of the consent order, they are required to give us
    their outreach plan. And so that way, we can actually look at
    it. And we have come up with almost 20 new robust strategies
    for them to pursue, along with about a dozen things that we
    already have underway.
        Mr. Guthrie. Takata, obviously, is a case, the recall
    obviously is different but there are a lot of recalls for a lot
    of different reasons. Do you look at recall fatigue? Like your
    door handle needs to be readjusted or I mean, I have heard--I
    have never seen one something specific but people say if there
    is a typo in an owner's manual, you get a recall notice on
    that. I haven't personally seen that one so I can't say. But I
    do see recalls that come through cars that I have and I say I
    will get around to that one because it is a screw in the chair
    seat or something like that versus, obviously, Takata, that is
    safety.
        Is there a way you try to or are concerned about people
    continuing getting recalls and then all of a sudden one is more
    serious than others and I guess recall fatigue?
        Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely and I think that has been the
    problems with the headlines is people get so many notices,
    potentially, when you are looking at, I mentioned a number, but
    last year in 2015, it was 900. The year before we are talking
    about 51 million vehicles being affected.
        And so yes, consumers, just knowing that that is something
    they need to pay attention to is a challenge. And then if you
    are getting multiple ones for different cars, that is a real
    problem. That is why we are trying to come up with new
    strategies, new approaches. While there is a lot of activity
    going on, I think the tragedy from a couple of weeks ago shows
    we have got to do more.
        Mr. Guthrie. Absolutely. And then I only have 19 seconds
    but you said publicly and your staff has said that auto safety
    technologies may have environmental benefits that would reduce
    greenhouse gases. Can you give a couple of examples of that in
    8 seconds? Sorry.
        Mr. Rosekind. Engines that are more efficient.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
    Mullin, 5 minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Sir, thank you for being here. It is very impressive, your
    command and knowledge of NHTSA. I think the whole time you have
    been there I haven't seen you even look back at anybody behind
    you or even look at a note. So, I will commend you for that. I
    am not capable of doing that.
        I just want to run a little bit on the recalls.
    Unfortunately, we heard of the young lady that lost her life
    and that has been brought up and talked about. There were some
    questions about how the vehicle is registered. I get that, too.
    But I have, on multiple vehicles, over time, and I still get
    recalls from vehicles that I owned years ago. Is there not--
    unless I am mistaken, I thought the DMVs were supposed to
    notify or help notify the individuals when they are registered
    with them of recalls. But is the DMVs communicating with the
    manufacturers to let them know that the vehicles change hands,
    some way to get those notifications farther out there? Because
    what we are having is obviously it is not being effective. And
    I understand the responsibility of the driver but, at the same
    time, when you a buy a vehicle or used, you assume everything
    is perfect on it. You are not looking for recalls. If you are
    looking for recalls, you would have never purchased the
    vehicle.
        So, is there communication with the state, with the
    manufacturer, with the DMVs? What is that communication like?
        Mr. Rosekind. There should be but you have just hit on,
    besides things like recall fatigue, you are hitting on another
    issue, which is where in the communication did that break down.
    Because one of the concerns you are just raising is when there
    is a multiple buyer, you have the used car has been bought by
    multiple buyers over time, there is the assumption that somehow
    that transition of ownership has been taken care of, that all
    the appropriate information has been passed on. That is not
    always tracked. And so now you are looking at the whole system,
    DMV, the manufacturer, where the notices go out, even if they
    have updated information on the owner and make sure that they
    are sending it to the right address where you actually live.
        So, you have just hit on another issue that we are trying
    to unravel, to figure out where all those touch points could
    be. That is why there is the interest in the DMV pilot. Is that
    something if you are going to register the car we could get you
    again?
        And I would actually like to use you in ad because you have
    got it. If you buy a new car, a used car, a rental car, your
    assumption is that it has no outstanding recalls.
        Mr. Mullin. Right.
        Mr. Rosekind. But that is not the case.
        Mr. Mullin. And the other breakdown, too, you can't--I have
    a fleet of vehicles and several mechanics that work for us in
    our companies. And you can't work on a car anymore without
    plugging it into a computer. It would seem that there would be
    a way for a notification to come up on the vehicle and
    everything that is connected the way that it is that there is a
    recall, regardless if the manufacturer is working on it at a
    certified GM mechanic or the mechanic down the road. You would
    think that would be a way for it to communicate because
    everybody has got to take their vehicles in and get the oils
    changed. Very few people are changing their oil now in their
    driveway. That might be a way.
        And I am open to discussing it further with you of maybe
    some simple ways that we might be able to come up with some
    more communication, more ways for just the average consumer to
    be able to get the technology or the information that they
    need.
        I want to go back to Mrs. Brooks and bring up the school
    bus issue. I have five kids that go to public school from 12 to
    5 years of age. They are going to be there for a while. And
    they are on a school bus all the time. The question is, though,
    I don't think any school is arguing the fact they want to put
    seatbelts in the school buses. It is that they can't afford it.
        So, is NHTSA looking at a program to help the schools?
    Because if we just mandate it for the schools to do it, schools
    are having issues with revenue left and right. We continuously
    put unfunded mandates on the school systems and you are not
    going to find a teacher, a superintendent, or someone elected
    to the school board that is going to argue the point that they
    don't want seatbelts in the school buses. But we have got to
    have some type of program to incentify them to be able to do it
    and funding that goes along with it.
        Mr. Rosekind. And we are looking at all those
    possibilities. And to your point, we don't want school
    districts to make the choice to not provide that safe school
    bus because of their concern about the seat belts. That is,
    again, one of those fine lines we have to tread. That is why we
    came out with a policy but without the mandate at this point,
    trying to figure out how other states and school systems have
    done it and we have met folks where they didn't have the funds
    but they made a decision in the district to only order new
    buses with three-point belts. They found a way to pull it off.
        Mr. Mullin. Well, you can order new buses that way. It is
    the old buses. And we know how expensive the new buses are. How
    long is it going to take to get the old buses off the roads?
    You are talking about years at that point.
        I am out of time. Sir, thank you for being here. I really
    do appreciate it. I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
    the gentleman.
        The chair would recognize Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois for
    a redirect.
        The chair will recognize himself for the opportunity for
    redirection to the Administrator for the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration.
        There is something that has come up relatively recently
    that I hear on car shows on Saturday morning and that is the
    issue of the seat back integrity. We put our children in car
    seats. We put them in the rear seat. But in some vehicle
    crashes the seat integrity of the seat back is what fails
    putting the adult then in the compartment with the child and
    the child is then injured. Is this something that you are
    looking into currently?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes and fortunately, severe rear impacts,
    severe, are fairly rare. And then when someone is specifically
    injured, trying to determine was it specifically the seat back
    strength is more rare. Which just means trying to get the data
    to figure out the safety benefit and other benefit
    determinations, these things can be challenging. But we are
    looking at from a potential regulatory standpoint and from a
    research standpoint. So, even if we don't have the real world
    data, we are looking at actually a new test dummy that would
    allow us to collect better data to make that kind of
    determination, which we would have to do to come out with a
    regulation in that area.
        Mr. Burgess. Very well.
        And then another unusual thing that happened in the North
    Texas area the day after Christmas, we had a very severe
    tornado. It blew in suddenly. It came at nighttime. Difficult
    to let people know it is coming. The greatest loss of life
    occurred on a tollway overpass, not people getting under it to
    get out of the path of the storm, which I recognize is a bad
    idea because of the Venturi effect under the overpass, but
    these were people actually travel over the overpass and they
    got pulled off the road and, obviously, there were multiple
    fatalities.
        Department of Transportation has lighted signs that they
    put up and, as you alluded to, the Click It or Ticket, or Drive
    Sober or Get Pulled Over, sometimes there will be traffic
    warnings. Is there any thought to providing timely weather
    warnings? The hailstorm we just had a few days ago in my area,
    this tornado the day after Christmas, people that are--I would
    like to say that everybody is listening to the weather warning
    station at that point but we know they are not. They are
    listening to their sound systems. Is there anything
    additionally we can do?
        This was kind of a new phenomenon, something I had not seen
    before, but people, again, literally sucked off the overpass
    and thrown into the lake and, again, with great loss of life.
        Mr. Rosekind. You have just said it, which is we use those
    signs for a lot of different things. And I will go and talk to
    Greg Nadeau, who is the Administrator of the Federal Highway
    Administration and see if that kind of information could be
    added to what is transmitted to the drivers.
        Mr. Burgess. I appreciate that. Do you mind if I go to Mr.
    Bilirakis first?
        Ms. Schakowsky. No, that is fine.
        Mr. Burgess. OK. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bilirakis, 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it.
        Administrator Rosekind, where do we stand currently with
    the V2V? Well, if you can tell me that. And then elaborate a
    little bit how it is going to work.
        Mr. Rosekind. Sure. Let's start with people talk about
    either or, connected vehicles or autonomous self-driving
    vehicles. The Department of Transportation thinks of this as
    connected automation. It is really both because they both give
    you sort of added safety.
        Connected vehicles are basically V2V, vehicle-to-vehicle,
    vehicle-to-infrastructure, V2X, anything else, or basically
    they are all going to be able to talk. What we know is that
    studies so far suggest that even two applications of V2V could
    prevent 600,000 crashes and save 1,000 lives. So, it has huge
    opportunity. Overall, potentially 80 percent of crashes that
    don't involve an impaired driver could be prevented with V2V.
        So we have, actually, introduced a rulemaking which has
    been accepted by OMB for review just to try and set up a
    consistent piece of equipment that would be used for the whole
    system in the United States.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Well, when do you anticipate this being
    online or you know our constituents availability? Give me a
    timeline on that.
        Mr. Rosekind. Right now, it has been accepted by OMB and is
    under review. So, that is kind of where we are, answering their
    questions.
        Mr. Bilirakis. So, 1 year, 2 years, any kind of an
    estimate?
        Mr. Rosekind. I can tell you that the proposal is to have
    it out--I will check the final date in the proposal. We have a
    specific in the proposal for when it will be on the road. My
    caution is just to say that our piece has it out proposed, it
    is currently under review at Office of Management and Budget.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Next question.
        NHTSA has announced several initiatives and workshops on
    numerous issues over the last 6 months and plans to complete
    work on these topics prior to the end of the administration. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. How are you ensuring adequate work and
    thorough stakeholder engagement is done on these important
    issues before the final actions are taken?
        Mr. Rosekind. Well, for a variety of the activities, they
    are, in fact, open public meetings. So retooling recalls was
    open. We have others, cognitive distraction that have been live
    webcasts for things.
        Right now the Secretary has announced in 6 months NHTSA is
    going to put out several things if you like to talk about
    autonomous vehicles. We just held the first public meeting on
    that last Friday. There is another one April 27th in
    California. There is an open docket for that.
        So, for activities that are leading to specific products,
    there is both some transparency and involvement from
    stakeholders.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
        What are the key takeaways from the cybersecurity
    roundtable that NHTSA held in January?
        Mr. Rosekind. Fascinating exchange because we had
    manufacturers in there with independent researchers and pretty
    much the whole mix. And I would just say one, it was
    fascinating to see that everybody thought you needed nimble and
    flexible, cautious about regulations because they could be
    outdated cybersecurity-wise before they are even in place. And
    the other is that everybody identified this is critical not
    just for protection but for the trust of the American people to
    see these automation things get on the road.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK, very good. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Cardenas, 5 minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Dr. Rosekind for coming forth and answering
    our questions. And you are welcome to ask questions as well.
        But I just wanted to thank you for all the work that you do
    and please, if you would, translate that to all of the good
    workers that you are surrounded with. And my first question has
    to be speaking of workers and the people you are able to
    surround yourself with, do you have as many people in your
    organization that you would need to address all the issues that
    you recognize you should be addressing or getting in front of?
        Mr. Rosekind. No.
        Mr. Cardenas. I had a funny feeling that would be the
    answer.
        Mr. Rosekind. But if you will let me, I will just say----
        Mr. Cardenas. Please.
        Mr. Rosekind. Well, thank you because this committee and
    the FAST Act is helping us get there. So, Office of Defect
    Investigations, which we have talked so much about has the
    potential now for us to hire 57 new people and address that
    issue. So, thank you so much because that is a huge difference
    for us.
        Mr. Cardenas. So, 57 new people. I am glad we were able to
    make sure. Congress has the power of the purse. So, that is up
    to us to give you your budgets, et cetera. So, I am glad we did
    that.
        But being an engineer myself, and someone who understands
    how the best way to get in front of an issue is to be proactive
    and an organization that has to do with traffic safety like
    yours, it is very important that people understand that,
    unfortunately, it is not that often that the United States
    constituents receive the benefit of other countries good work
    on issues like this. We tend to be the leaders. Isn't that the
    case? Not always, but tend to be the leaders more often than
    not.
        Mr. Rosekind. And I try and preface this by saying I am
    biased. But I would like to say certainly in a lot of the
    technology innovations, the U.S. is a leader.
        Mr. Cardenas. Yes, and I believe that is the case both in
    the issues we are talking about today here and in many, many
    things. It is something that we as Americans should be proud of
    but with all due respect, government does have its place,
    especially when it comes to safety of the American public and
    anybody who comes to our great country and assumes that safety
    is a priority for us and that we are continuing to make it a
    priority. So, once again, thank you, Doctor.
        I would like to ask you, as I am sure you are aware, in
    February, the Center for Auto Safety filed a lawsuit against
    the Department of Transportation alleging that by failing to
    publish technical service bulletins or TSBs in their entirety
    online for consumers, DOT was in violation of MAP-21s. Finally,
    on March 25th, DOT announced that it would publish TSBs and it
    has been brought to my attention that full TSBs are now
    available on the Web site. I look forward to ensuring they are
    all up as soon as possible.
        However, members of this committee worked very hard to have
    TSB publication included in MAP-21. And while I am pleased that
    NHTSA is beginning to finally comply with the requirements, I
    think it is unfortunate that it took a lawsuit to get NHTSA to
    make that happen.
        I would like to ask you about the Early Warning Reporting
    System. That system was put into place in 2000, after the
    highly publicized Ford Firestone tire recalls. Early Warning
    Reporting is intended to alert NHTSA to vehicle defects as
    early as possible, ideally, helping to identify major problems
    and minimizing the risk to the public. However, last year's
    audit by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
    General highlighted some problems with the current Early
    Warning Reporting System. It said that safety defects are often
    mis-categorized and that manufacturers have wide latitude on
    what information they are required to provide.
        Dr. Rosekind, what changes or improvements, if any, is
    NHTSA making to the Early Warning Reporting System to respond
    to the findings in the IG report?
        Mr. Rosekind. So, this came up in opening comments. This is
    an opportunity to give everybody an update.
        There were 17 recommendations that the Inspector General
    identified. The Early Warning Reports, EWRs, were one of them.
    We made an aggressive commitment to finish all of those
    recommendations within a 1-year period, so by the end of June
    2016. And the Inspector General was very clear nobody ever does
    that, actually give them a schedule.
        We have six of those closed ahead of schedule and we have
    the other 11 already identified and on schedule to be finished
    by the end of June 2016.
        We have also done one other thing that nobody ever does. We
    have actually set up technical meetings with the IG's office to
    tell them what our plans are to meet those recommendations so
    that we have an ongoing discussion with them to make sure we
    meet them in an appropriate closed way.
        Mr. Cardenas. So, 11 out of 17 have been addressed ahead of
    schedule.
        Mr. Rosekind. Six. The first six ahead of schedule. We are
    working on the other 11, which are on schedule.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK, on schedule.
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes.
        Mr. Cardenas. It sounds like you are not only a good
    listener, you are a good action department. So, I just wanted
    to thank you so much for doing that.
        Ahead of schedule is great. On schedule is good. And we
    hope that you are able to do that. Not that you would want to
    opine, but I hope that on this side we are as good a listener
    as you are. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois for a
    redirect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        So, just a few weeks ago, the new chairman of the National
    Automobile Dealers Association or NADA said that--or maybe it
    is NADA, NADA sounds--I don't know. OK, I don't know which it
    is--said that we shouldn't have legislation requiring dealers
    to fix all recalls on used cars before they can be sold because
    only six percent of recalls are hazardous.
        Now, I have a letter that we received today from Cally
    Houck, mother of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck and Alexander
    Brangman, father of Jewel Brangman. And it says as parents of
    precious, beautiful, talented daughters killed by recalled cars
    with lethal safety defects, we are appalled that you--it is a
    letter directed to Jeff Carlson, Chairman of the National
    Automobile Dealers Association--that you would claim that
    ``only six percent of recalls are hazardous.'' Our daughters
    were driving or riding in cars that were the very defects that
    you claim were not hazardous and, therefore, acceptable for
    your car dealer members to sell to the public without repairing
    the defects first.
        So, Dr. Rosekind, I think it really is important to clarify
    this point. Does NHTSA require manufacturers to recall vehicles
    if a defect is even not safety related but all defects?
        Mr. Rosekind. We have been at this before, haven't we?
        Ms. Schakowsky. We have.
        Mr. Rosekind. Yes. And a defect that is an open recall
    needs to be fixed, whether it is new, used, or rental.
        And we just heard the Congressman say the assumption in any
    one of those circumstances is that if there is open recall,
    there is no defect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, do you plan to reply at all to the
    notion--first of all, is that accurate, in your view, that the
    deaths of these girls was caused by something claiming to be
    nonhazardous by the Dealers Association?
        Mr. Rosekind. This is one of those ongoing challenges of
    them trying to--of individuals trying to sort of split. That is
    why we are pretty straightforward. Any open recall needs to be
    fixed, period.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, are dealers prohibited, then, and
    should be prohibited from selling or leasing used cars until
    all recalls have been repaired?
        Mr. Rosekind. That was in the GROW AMERICA Act and we
    believe any new, used, or rental should be free of defects.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I hope that is really strongly
    communicated. I feel an obligation to the people from whom we
    received this letter and to the lost daughters of theirs that
    we make that perfectly clear.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back.
        And that concludes questions for the first panel. Dr.
    Rosekind, thank you very much for your forbearance in staying
    with us today.
        We will take a 2-minute recess to set up for the second
    panel, at which time, we will reassemble.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Burgess. I want to welcome everyone back and thank
    everyone for their time and patience in being here today.
        We will move into our second panel for today's hearing and
    we will follow the same format as the first panel. Each witness
    will be recognized to give 5 minutes to summarize their opening
    statement, followed by a round of questions from members.
        For our second panel, we have the following witnesses: Mr.
    Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO at Alliance of Automobile
    Manufacturers; Mr. John Bozzella, President and CEO at Global
    Automakers; Mr. Michael Wilson, CEO at Automotive Recyclers
    Association; Ms. Jackie Gillian, President at Advocates for
    Highway and Auto Safety; Ms. Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President
    at Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association.
        We do appreciate you all being with us here today. We will
    begin the panel discussion with you, Mr. Bainwol, and you are
    recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your opening statement.

      STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF
      AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
     GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS; MICHAEL WILSON, CEO, AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLERS
       ASSOCIATION; JACQUELINE GILLIAN, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR
      HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; ANN WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
             MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

                       STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL

        Mr. Bainwol. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    members of the committee, thank you for this chance to be here
    today to testify. I do so on behalf of 12 major OEMs based in
    the U.S., in Europe, and in Asia. Rather than read a prepared
    statement, I thought I would run through some slides very
    quickly to try to provide some context. So, if we can move to
    the next slide.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Bainwol. This first slide is a 65-year trend line of
    fatalities on the U.S. roads. The vertical bars are fatalities
    in absolute numbers. And you see the roughly 33,000, which is
    roughly where we were in 1949. The green line is vehicle miles
    traveled and the yellow line is fatalities by vehicle miles
    traveled, which are down about sevenfold. That is what the CDC
    described as a tremendous public health achievement of the
    second half of the century.
        The gains, thus far, have been on the basis of two primary
    factors. One is changes in behavior, fewer people driving drunk
    and more people driving belted. And that is great.
        And the second piece of that has been technology focused on
    crash worthiness. So, when an accident occurs, folks survive
    that crash. It moves that yellow line down forward into the
    future, we will require technology to prevent crashes. Next
    slide.
        [Slide shown.]
        Mr. Bainwol. So a quick recall summary. As you all know, we
    did significant research last summer with Global Automakers and
    we learned a number of things, one of which is in terms of
    awareness, about 85 percent of the awareness that folks have of
    the recall comes from communications, from the OEM, and/or from
    the dealer. We also know that there is a relationship in terms
    of certain factors with recall completion. The more educated
    you are, the greater the level of completion, the higher the
    income, the greater the completion, the greater the risk
    perception, the higher the level of responsiveness. The older
    the age of the car, the less likely somebody is to bring the
    car in for completion. And the closer to the dealer
    relationship, the more likely somebody is to get that job done.
        So, what do we need? We need not just to drive awareness
    but to find ways to motivate people to comply with the recall.
    And we do mail and email until we are blue in the face. And
    folks, everybody gets a ton of communications and it is very
    hard to break through. It is not unlike campaigns and politics
    where sending a message is one thing; motivating somebody to
    behave is another thing. So, it is very, very tough. We need
    help and we need folks in the other elements of the ecosystem
    to engage. And that is why one of the reasons we are delighted
    with the FAST Act provision on DMVs. The pilot program, I
    think, they discussed with Administrator Rosekind, that is a
    really strong idea and we think that is worth pursuing.
        We also think it is a good idea and we have reached out to
    the insurance community because those folks engage drivers
    semi-annually, typically. And when you go in for a renewal or
    you go in for a quote, those folks can notify a consumer who is
    very focused on their car at that point about an open recall
    and they would be very, very helpful. Next slide.
        [Slide shown.]
        Mr. Bainwol. This is a sample insert. Given time, I will
    skip on. Next slide.
        [Slide shown.]
        Mr. Bainwol. So this is really important in terms of
    dimensionalizing the problem we have got. There were 32,675
    folks who died in 2014 on the roads and that is a tragedy. Of
    those, 31,479 perished in accidents that had nothing to do with
    the vehicle. OK? Three--let me find the number here--1196, 3.7
    percent were fatalities related to vehicle factors but in all
    vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, trucks, and light duty vehicles,
    836, 2.6 percent were vehicle factors in light duty vehicles.
    And of that, roughly two-thirds were accidents related to
    vehicle maintenance factors.
        So, under one percent of the factors in 2014 related to the
    vehicle.
        The other part down there is very hard to see in the lower
    right, relates to the age of the car. Five percent of the
    fatalities were in cars that were 5 years or newer. That same
    proportion of the fleet is 27 percent.
        Cars that are older than 10 years represented 75 percent of
    the fatalities and just 46 percent of the fleet. So, obviously,
    there is a very direct relationship with the age of the cars.
        I will skip through the next slide and let's go to benefits
    of automation real fast.
        [Slide shown.]
        Mr. Bainwol. So, as you talk about the future and as you
    talk about technology and the tools necessary to drive
    increased levels of safety, there is this question about what
    happens with automation. Is it going to be a revolution with
    autonomy or is it going to be an evolution toward autonomy? And
    the benefits you accrue accrue immediately. So, the safety
    benefits you get from things like automatic braking, the
    environmental benefits you get from automatic braking, national
    security reduced use of fuel from automatic braking. The
    factors that you don't get, the benefits that you don't get,
    are things like access, which does require full autonomy.
        Last slide, given the time.
        [Slide shown.]
        Mr. Bainwol. If you look at market penetration, as you
    examine the future, this is a study that was done by Moody's
    that came out about a week ago and this is their estimate about
    the roll out of self-driving cars.
        In 2020, the self-driving car is available. That is roughly
    right. In 2030, they deem it to become common. In 2035, they
    deem it to become standard. And in 2045, they deem the fleet to
    be a majority self-driving. And in 2055, they deem it to be
    ubiquitous.
        So, we are talking about 40 years from now to ubiquity.
    Along the way, we have these technologies like automatic
    braking that will have a huge impact on the social benefits
    that we can accrue.
        We have an enormous opportunity to make fantastic safety
    gains and the focus on technology is when we should lean
    forward. I think the Administration has done exactly that. We
    applaud them for that. And we applaud this committee also for
    its focus on the promise of new technologies.
        [The prepared statement by Mr. Bainwol follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        Mr. Bozzella, 5 minutes for your opening statement, please.

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA

        Mr. Bozzella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        Global Automakers represents international automobile
    manufacturers and original equipment suppliers in the United
    States. Our members directly employ well over 100,000 Americans
    and sell over 40 percent of all new vehicles purchased in the
    country.
        Our companies are improving the safety of vehicles in the
    road today and revolutionizing mobility. Automakers are
    competing furiously and taking the lead to introduce innovative
    technologies that address and solve problems.
        I have submitted written testimony in which I discuss these
    matters in more detail. I will highlight two critical policy
    priorities that will help drive life-saving technologies into
    the marketplace. But first, I would like to update the
    committee on actions we are taking to improve recall
    completions.
        The recent tragedy in Texas has shown that we must continue
    to work urgently to reach every affected customer and fix every
    single vehicle. Since we last met, the committee took decisive
    action in the FAST Act to investigate what we think is a very
    important idea, addressing recall completion through the
    vehicle registration process. We requested that appropriators
    fully fund the pilots. We have been encouraging states to look
    at this. And we urge NHTSA to release the request for proposal
    to get the process started.
        The industry has been working hard to complete the Takata
    recalls by securing alternative airbag supply, by employing new
    methods beyond what is required by law to find, inform, and
    encourage owners to bring their vehicles in for repair and
    participating also in NHTSA's coordinated remedy program. The
    industry has also reached out to insurance companies, as Mitch
    just testified, asking for their help in notifying customers
    about open recalls.
        In January, automakers joined with the Department of
    Transportation to announce the Proactive Safety Principles.
    Under the principles, we are working with NHTSA to share best
    practices to improve recall completion rates and to examine
    ways to better identify potential safety risks earlier.
    Together we, the industry, policymakers, regulators, and safety
    advocates have made substantial progress over the last 50 years
    but we have much more to do. Innovation in the automated and
    connected vehicle space is already producing significant public
    benefits.
        There are two critical near-term priorities for federal
    regulators and policymakers to accelerate innovation and
    dramatically improve highway safety. First, the Federal
    Government needs to take leadership on vehicle automation.
    Federal policymakers have long recognized the public benefit of
    national motor vehicle safety standards that allow
    manufacturers to bring the latest advances in safety to
    consumers in all 50 states.
        A patchwork of local and state laws will almost certainly
    slow innovation. For instance, what happens when an automated
    vehicle meets the design criteria for one state but not
    another? Would the vehicle be banned from crossing the state
    line? The Federal Government, working closely with
    stakeholders, must quickly expand its leadership role to ensure
    the development of policies that foster, rather than inhibit
    innovation.
        Secondly, the Federal Government must help accelerate the
    game-changing benefits that will come with connected cars.
    Moving NHTSA's proposed vehicle-to-vehicle rule forward will
    create an interoperable standard so all cars can communicate
    with each other and the infrastructure to warn drivers of
    dangers and ultimately avoid crashes.
        After more than a decade of research and development and
    significant investment by both the public and private sectors,
    this technology is being tested on public roads and is ready
    for widespread deployment. Government support must ensure that
    both the vehicle standard is established and that access to the
    dedicated spectrum, free of harmful interference is maintained.
    With clear rules, innovation will flourish.
        Exciting developments in the automated and connected
    vehicle space are creating tremendous benefits, yet bring
    challenges that must be addressed. I believe that collaboration
    is the key to ensuring that the benefits of these technologies
    reach consumers. There is no one single approach to achieve
    this goal. So, let's work together to develop and use the right
    tools in the right way.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement by Mr. Bozzella follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Wilson, 5 minutes for your opening
    statement, please.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILSON

        Mr. Wilson. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify before you today.
        My name is Michael Wilson and I am CEO of the Automotive
    Recyclers Association. The ARA is dedicated to the efficient
    removal and reutilization of genuine original equipment
    automotive parts. The ARA represents the interests of over
    4,500 professional automotive recyclers in the United States
    who each day sell over 500,000 recycled parts. These quality,
    recycled original equipment parts are designed by automobile
    manufacturers and built to meet their requirements for fit,
    finish, durability, reliability, and safety. These parts are
    often subsequently reutilized in the repair and service of
    vehicles and continue to operate as they were originally
    intended.
        I come before you today with appreciati on for the
    Congress, including a provision in FAST Act that provides the
    automotive recycling industry to OE parts data on all recalled
    automotive parts and to discuss the important steps that must
    be taken to implement the provision.
        While the language in the FAST Act does not provide for
    access to all parts data for every motor vehicle, as did the
    version that passed the full House on November 4th of last
    year, it does signify the importance of part numbers to enhance
    consumer safety.
        ARA applauds Administrator Rosekind's goal of 100 percent
    remedy rates for safety recalls and has had numerous
    discussions with the Administrator and NHTSA staff over the
    last several years. Since passage of the FAST Act, ARA has not
    had detailed conversations with NHTSA on this issue. However,
    we believe our previous outreach to NHTSA and the Congress has
    provided the Agency with significant insight into the data must
    be made available electronically to address consumer safety
    concerns.
        ARA's leadership and staff stand ready to provide the
    agency with assistance on the complexities of part
    identification in the recycled parts supply chain. Specific
    data requirements need to be addressed to ensure that the new
    law has the positive and effective outcomes as intended.
         In my comments, I will address three main issues that need
    to be addressed by NHTSA for successful implementation.
        First, the provision's purpose is to provide the recycling
    industry with the recall data necessary to specifically
    identify automobile manufacturers' defective parts in the
    automotive supply chain. As I testified before this
    Subcommittee last October, the data on part names, part
    descriptions and part numbers must be tied to specific VIN
    numbers for recyclers to be able to identify manufacturers'
    defective parts.
        The relationship between specific VINs and each vehicle
    manufacturer part number enables processing of the data with
    standard IT systems. It is only with access to specific VIN
    numbers tied to standardized parts information that the
    industry's commercial inventory management system providers and
    large independent operators have the ability to cost
    effectively develop software that can automatically identify
    manufacturers' defective recall parts that are in recyclers'
    inventories or identity the vehicles which contain recalled
    parts prior to purchase by recycler.
        However, with only VIN ranges, the industry would be
    limited to manually mapping each recall campaign, a process
    that one inventory management system provider has already
    attempted, only to determine that it is so time consuming that
    having to manually map up the thousands of manufacturer recalls
    using VIN ranges would bankrupt the company.
        Secondly, ARA maintains that no new government database
    needs to be developed because manufacturers are already
    required by statute to maintain publicly available lists of
    specific VINs of the vehicles involved in recall that are
    included in a quarterly report.
         Currently, the statute also requires that these reports
    continue to be available online through www.safercar.gov as
    part of the manufacturer's recall file. The current rule also
    requires manufacturers to submit their part 573 notification
    reports through NHTSA's internet Web site portal. Given that
    manufacturers already submit quarterly recall reports
    electronically to NHTSA, ARA believes that the process may only
    involve a modest technical correction to provide stakeholders
    timely access to data fields within these reports, which in
    turn would allow these parties to cross-check that information
    with the inventories of recyclers. However, providing these
    reports in a non-integratable format is unacceptable. NHTSA's
    implementing language must adopt parts identification methods
    that embrace advancements in information technology resulting
    in a state-of-the-art electronic processing methods based on
    the relationship between the VIN and part numbers. Vehicle
    manufacturers themselves use this VIN-OE number relationships
    in their own parts ordering systems. Automobile manufacturers'
    refusal to grant access to this precise parts identification
    method leads to a monopoly on critical safety information that
    puts consumers at risk and the entire independent replacement
    parts market at a disadvantage.
        It is no longer a matter of letting motor vehicle
    manufacturers decide whether it suits their business model to
    grant access to this data or not. It is a consumer safety
    concern that NHTSA must address.
        Lastly, it is important that NHTSA adequately address the
    scope of data that will be provided to the professional
    automotive recycling industry. To effectively address
    requirements under the TREAD Act as well as new requirements
    contained in the FAST Act that requires manufacturers to
    financially remedy their recall defects going back 15 years,
    automobile manufacturers must be required to provide this
    recalled parts data back to November 2000 to cover the 10,252
    recall campaigns over this time period.
        It is only through comprehensive access to both original
    equipment part numbers of recalled parts, tied to specific VINs
    that manufacturers and recyclers can come together to enhance
    overall motor vehicle safety; help improve recall remedy rates;
    and seek to effectively address the federal recall remedy
    requirements for used equipment enacted 15 years ago in the
    TREAD Act.
        I am thankful for the attention of the Congress in the
    oversight of this critical safety issue and I thank you for
    this opportunity to speak before you today.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Michael Wilson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        Ms. Gillian, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement, please.

                    STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE GILLIAN

        Ms. Gillian. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
    Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the
    subcommittee.
        I am Jackie Gillian, President of Advocates for Highway and
    Auto Safety, a coalition of consumer health and safety and
    insurers working together to save lives by promoting adoption
    of highway and auto safety laws.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this
    morning.
        Although motor vehicle deaths are on the rise, the good
    news is that we have solutions at hand to reduce this death and
    injury toll. There is an unfinished and overdue safety agenda
    which needs attention and action by Congress and NHTSA. I would
    like to briefly highlight several needed improvements.
        The grim statistic about rising deaths comes at a time when
    Americans are also facing a record number of recalls for
    vehicle safety defects, which has been mentioned repeatedly
    this morning. The dangers posed by the record high number of
    recalls are exacerbated by the disturbingly low rate for
    completing repairs. However, the most effective and direct
    solution can be summed up in one word, prevention. The auto
    industry must identify safety problems sooner and take
    corrective action immediately.
        Millions of vehicles are under recall today, about one out
    of five registered vehicles because known safety defects were
    hidden for years from the public and from NHTSA. Now, consumers
    must bear the burden of driving defective vehicles, waiting
    months for replacement parts, and taking time to bring in their
    vehicles for repairs.
        Other necessary solutions are closing the loophole that
    permits dealers to sell used cars under recall, linking vehicle
    registration with repairing defects and providing NHTSA with
    imminent hazard authority to immediately stop the manufacturing
    of defective vehicles.
        Additionally, we commend the increased funding levels
    adopted in the FAST Act for NHTSA but it is still not enough to
    address the numerous challenges facing the agency. Insufficient
    resources will hamper NHTSA is available to ensure the safety
    of the car of today, as well as the safety of the car of
    tomorrow.
        One of the chronic problems facing NHTSA is timely
    completion of important rulemakings required by Congress. And I
    know there was focus on how well they were doing addressing the
    FAST Act requirements. There are many MAP-21 requirements that
    are overdue, some by more than a year. These include final
    rules due in 2014 to improve occupant protection in motor
    coaches for the roof strength and anti-ejection protection. In
    addition, motor coach fires are frequent, oftentimes fatal, and
    yet completely preventable. NHTSA has been ignoring repeatedly
    NTSB recommendations and their own research about strategies
    and rules that can be implemented to address fire prevention
    and that needs to change.
        Child occupant protection is another top priority. Again,
    NHTSA has delayed conducting rulemakings required by Congress
    that affect the safety of all of our children. For example,
    rules requiring seatbelt reminders and improving the LATCH
    system for proper child restraint installation were due last
    October and still haven't been issued.
        Also, as you mentioned Chairman Burgess, millions of
    children riding in the back seat are needlessly at risk but
    there are solutions available. There is no need for a child to
    tragically die from hyperthermia or hypothermia when
    inadvertently left behind in a vehicle or because the seat back
    fails in a crash and kills or seriously injures a child sitting
    behind a front seat passenger.
        It is time for NHTSA to issue rules requiring technology to
    alert adults to unattended children left in a car and to update
    the seat back strength standard, which was issued in 1967.
        Unfortunately, the FAST Act did not adopt important safety
    solutions that are still needed and contained in the Vehicle
    Safety Improvement Act of 2015. These include removing the cap
    on civil penalties, prohibiting regional recalls, upgrading
    early warning reporting requirements, and improving pedestrian
    safety.
        Advocates also believe that the advent of driverless cars
    in the future holds great promise to advance safety. However,
    federal oversight, minimum performance standards, as well as
    transparent and verified data are essential in the process.
    Consumers should not be guinea pigs in this experiment and
    NHTSA cannot be a passive spectator.
        Fifty years ago, Congress passed and President Johnson
    signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
    Act of 1966 to protect the public against, and this is quoted
    from the law, unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because
    of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles.
    The underlying principles of this prescient 50-year-old law
    have not changed. But in order for the agency to fulfill its
    statutory mission, NHTSA needs sufficient resources and a
    strong resolve to use its regulatory and enforcement
    authorities to protect the public.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gillian follows:]
        [[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. And the chair
    apologizes. I mispronounced your name, Ms. Gillian. And I had a
    phonetic spelling in front of me, which I followed and I should
    have done what I knew was correct.
        Ms. Gillian. Well, no need to worry. When I was reviewing
    my statement right before I sent it over, my staff had
    misspelled my name. So, you are in good company.
        Mr. Burgess. Ms. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes
    for your opening statement, please.

                        STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON

        Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, members of the subcommittee, my name is Ann Wilson.
    I serve as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for
    the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association.
        Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on
    the implementation of provisions in the FAST Act.
        MEMA represents vehicle suppliers that manufacture and
    remanufacture components and systems for use in passenger cars
    and heavy trucks. Our members develop and manufacture original
    equipment to new vehicles, as well as aftermarket parts to
    service, maintain, and repair the over 256 million vehicles
    that are on the road today. Suppliers are the largest employer
    of manufacturing jobs in the United States, directly employing
    over 700,000 Americans with a total employment impact of 3.6
    million jobs.
        Our members lead the way in developing advanced,
    transformative technologies that enable safer, smarter, and
    more efficient vehicles, all within a rapidly growing global
    marketplace. Ultimately, about two-thirds of the value of
    today's vehicles comes from suppliers. Suppliers work closely
    with vehicle manufacturers to provide cutting edge, innovative
    systems and components for new vehicles.
        Today, I wanted to focus on the real benefits that advanced
    safety technology can provide to motor vehicle safety. There
    are many advanced safety features available in the vehicle
    marketplace ranging from passive to active systems that either
    warn, aid, and/or assist a driver and to avoid or mitigate
    vehicle crashes. These crash avoidance and mitigation
    technologies combined with decades of improved crash worthiness
    features provide the opportunity for significant overall
    reduction of fatalities, injuries, and property damage claims
    in the United States.
        In 2015, MEMA and the Boston consulting group released a
    report exploring the safety benefits to some of these systems,
    known collectively as advanced driver assistance systems or
    ADAS. Last year, MEMA testified before this subcommittee that
    ADAS technologies can provide immediate safety benefits and
    form the pathway to a partially and fully automated vehicle
    fleet that could virtually eliminate traffic fatalities. The
    study found that a suite of ADAS technologies has the potential
    to prevent as many as 30 percent of all crashes, a total of
    10,000 lives--10,000 lives saved annually.
        However, relatively few vehicles on the road today have
    ADAS technologies and the market penetration is only growing at
    about two to five percent annually. Since driver error is, by
    far, the leading factor in motor vehicle crashes, the lack of
    widespread adoption of these technologies in the U.S. is a
    significant missed opportunity. Congress recognized the
    importance of these technologies with enactment of the FAST Act
    and the direction to NHTSA to include crash avoidance
    technologies in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program.
        Shortly after passage, as Dr. Rosekind testified, NHTSA
    announced its envisioned upgrades to NCAP beginning with model
    year 2019 vehicles. The purpose of this enhancement is to
    expand the program beyond crash worthiness by including for the
    first time crash avoidance and mitigation technologies and
    pedestrian safety.
        MEMA commends Congress and NHTSA for taking this major
    stride to enhance and expand the NCAP categories and ratings.
    Collaboration between government, vehicle manufacturers,
    suppliers, safety advocates, and other stakeholders is key to
    the success of a significant evolution in the program. Even
    though NCAP is a voluntary, non-regulatory program, it has a
    substantial and direct impact on how automakers and suppliers
    design future vehicles and plan for emerging technologies. In
    addition, NCAP provides that all-important link of information
    to the consumer.
        There are a variety of other tactics that can be utilized
    by policymakers in industry to achieve the overarching goal of
    reducing crashes. MEMA supports the volunteer agreement between
    the automakers and NHTSA to make automatic emergency braking
    technology standard equipment in almost light duty vehicles by
    the year 2022.
        Additionally, MEMA strongly believes another key element to
    the expansion of ADAS technologies is the development of future
    regulations with our global counterparts, most notably, the
    European Union.
        These efforts do not equate to a lower standard of safety.
    Rather, a strong harmonized system can provide an opportunity
    to address new safety technologies in a transparent and
    efficient manner.
        Members of MEMA are committed to motor vehicle safety. As
    industry moves forward with increased collaboration with
    regulators, we believe that NHTSA's use of NCAP program,
    voluntary agreements, and rulemaking has the potential to
    address many of our current challenges.
        MEMA also urges the agency to actively engage in the
    harmonization of new regulations that could speed completion of
    testing standards and regulations.
        We applaud this committee's commitment to motor vehicle
    safety by updating the NCAP program and providing greater
    access to safety technology.
        I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ann Wilson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
        And I thank you all for your testimony and we will now move
    into the question portion of the hearing and I would like to
    yield the first 5 minutes to the vice-chair of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Lance, for your questions, please.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning and
    almost afternoon to you all.
        Ms. Gillian, I believe I heard you say that fatalities are
    increasing. Is that right?
        Ms. Gillian. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Lance. Could you explain that, pleas?
        Ms. Gillian. NHTSA recently released data showing that
    comparing the first three quarters of 2014 with the first three
    quarters of 2015, that there has been over a nine percent
    increase in motor vehicle fatalities. And that increase
    actually represents one of the largest jumps that we have seen
    in the last 30 to 40 years. And so it is really significant and
    that is the reason we need to focus on what are those programs
    and strategies that can help turn that around.
        Mr. Lance. Mr. Bainwol, would you like to comment on that?
    Because I am looking at your chart now and I see your chart
    goes to 2014.
        Mr. Bainwol. Right and that is because there are not
    official numbers yet for 2015. But we do know that the
    aggregate number has risen and it has risen beyond vehicle
    miles traveled. So, there is a delta there that is disconnected
    from the amount of travel and that is very, very concerning.
        What we don't know is the cause. There are some clues. We
    won't really be able to know until the full data set comes out.
    For instance, is this from motorcyclists? Is it pedestrians? Is
    it passengers? Is it drivers? We just don't know.
        We have seen some early clue. There was a story I saw a
    couple of weeks ago comparing one state, in Wisconsin,
    pedestrian, motorcyclist, others and there was a spike in
    pedestrian. There was a spike in motorcyclists. But we won't
    know until the full data set comes out.
        It is concerning but I would make one other, I think,
    crucial point. And that is if we lived in a zero defect world,
    99 percent of the fatalities that we are addressing still
    exist. So, the question here is that doesn't mean we shouldn't
    cope with the one percent, we should get that right. Recall
    policy is vitally important and we are totally committed to
    making sure we get it right. But we also have to find a way to
    deal with the preponderance of the problem, the 99 percent. And
    the good news that we have been talking about in this panel is
    that technology brings that possibility, the ability to avoid
    accidents will save thousands of lives. And the faster we can
    lean forward and implement that technology, the better off we
    are going to be.
        Mr. Lance. According to your chart, in 2014 of the 32,675
    fatalities, 1,196, as I understand your chart, were related to
    vehicle factors. Am I reading that chart accurately?
        Mr. Bainwol. Correct. And factors represents two things,
    one are defects, and one is maintenance. So, if you have an
    improperly inflated tire, that is a maintenance issue and not a
    defect issue.
        Mr. Lance. And I am sure this is still a matter of
    speculation but could the increased fatalities, as Ms. Gillian
    has indicated, and I will ask Ms. Gillian as well, could they
    be based upon factors such as texting, for example?
        Mr. Bainwol. So, I will give you an anecdotal response not
    a scientific response but, yes.
        Every day I drive to work. It takes me about an hour to get
    to work. And as I focus on my driving task, I also look to see
    what the other guy is doing. And I see lots of folks looking
    down at their phones. So, there is no question there is a
    texting problem, both in the car and, ironically, with
    pedestrians. If you watch people cross streets, more often than
    not, they are like this.
        Mr. Lance. I see a texting problem in the hallways of
    Congress.
        Mr. Bainwol. But not one on this panel.
        Mr. Lance. No, it involves people a generation younger than
    you or I who are bumping into me as they are texting and not
    looking where they are going.
        Ms. Gillian, if you would like to respond to my series of
    questions.
        Ms. Gillian. Yes, I very much would like to.
        We need to really attack this problem, both looking at
    getting the--improving the behavior of the driver. Advocates is
    very active. In fact, we just put out this report, Missing in
    Action, on the need for states to step up and pass texting
    laws, tougher drunk driving laws, child restraint laws.
        Mr. Lance. Yes.
        Ms. Gillian. However, the other part of the equation is
    also the issue of driving safer cars. And many years ago, the
    former president of MADD said to me, you know, Jackie, the best
    defense against a drunk driver is a safe car.
        So, you really need to attack both. And the problem is with
    all these recalls is that we have seen that people are not
    taking them in. You are getting two or three notices and then
    we have these deaths like the 17-year-old teenager in a low-
    speed crash.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time is expiring. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
    Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gillian, members of--no, no. In February--I wanted to
    preface this question--the Center for Auto Safety filed a
    lawsuit against DOT alleging that DOT's failure to publish
    Technical Service Bulletins or TSBs online----
        Ms. Gillian. I am sorry. I am having a hard time hearing
    you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK, let me try again.
        Ms. Gillian. OK.
        Ms. Schakowsky. All right. In February, the Center for Auto
    Safety filed a lawsuit against DOT alleging that DOT's failure
    to publish Technical Service Bulletins or TSBs online was a
    violation of MAP-21.
        On March 25th, DOT issued a Federal Register notice saying
    that it would begin posting all TSBs online. Conveniently, TSBs
    started appearing yesterday on DOT's Web site.
        So, here is my question. Members of this committee drafted
    and pushed hard for the TSB publication provision in MAP-21.
    And I know this might sound rhetorical but should it have taken
    a lawsuit for DOT to start posting that information? And is
    this a pattern we should worry about?
        Ms. Gillian. Yes, and there is an issue, an example even
    closer to home, Representative Schakowsky----
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        Ms. Gillian [continuing]. And that is rearview cameras.
    That is also an issue where finally in 2008 we got legislation
    passed requiring rearview cameras as standard equipment. They
    will become standard equipment in 2018. Because of your
    legislation and your tenacious advocacy in the work that safety
    groups did, we ended up having to file a lawsuit to finally
    spring that rule free from OMB and the agency.
        So, we are kind of faced with all of these roadblocks. We
    can't get the agency to issue the rules. I have given examples
    in my testimony. Then, when they are, they delay the deadlines.
    And then finally, we have to resort to litigation.
        And public interest groups, Public Citizen handled the
    case, both those cases for us but it really is unnecessary for
    these very common sense and important rules and regulations
    that consumers want.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And let me point out in terms of the rear
    visibility, that law actually passed in 2008. And so finally,
    in 2018, we will see that standard.
        So, I wanted to ask you, you talked quite a bit about
    recalls, as you said 2015 was another record-setting year for
    recalls, more than 51 million vehicles were recalled. Again,
    for Ms. Gillian.
        Dr. Rosekind has said publicly that NHTSA's diligence in
    pursuing automakers for safety defects is part of why recalls
    have gone up, rather than just an increase in the number of
    defects. Perhaps that is partly the case. Some have suggested
    that because of the recent high profile recalls the industry is
    more willing to go to recall faster to get ahead of the story.
        What, in your view, is causing the rise in recalls and do
    you agree with Dr. Rosenkind's assessment?
        Ms. Gillian. Well I think, as I said in my testimony, we
    supported legislation which removed the cap no civil penalties.
    We supported criminal penalties.
        I mean I think that you had GM, Takata, and VW feeling that
    they could ignore the law and produce cars that were faced with
    these defects and pretty much just face a fine that is a slap
    on the wrist is contributing to the problem.
        And I think that while you know I support what NHTSA is
    doing in trying to accelerate the consumers repairing their
    vehicles, I mean I think that we need a tough cop on the beat
    and I think that we need NHTSA--a lot of the issues we finally
    got Technical Service Bulletins published.
        There is still an issue with that agency on transparency. I
    just heard from one of my Board members, Standard for Auto
    Safety that is still trying to get documents out of them. It is
    still a very difficult and cumbersome process for consumers to
    get that information.
        And I will tell you, if you look back on those three
    examples, GM, Takata, and VW, consumer groups played a big role
    in exposing those problems. And so you know that is the
    importance of having this information available so that we can
    also be a check on what is going on.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And thank you for that.
        A number of people brought up today in January NHTSA
    announced a voluntary agreement with 18 automakers called the
    Proactive Safety Principles. Do you expect that agreement to
    have an effect on recall rates?
        Ms. Gillian. Well, I will make that a short answer. No,
    because voluntary standards are rife with deficiencies. They
    are unenforceable. When a consumer goes in the showroom, they
    don't know whether that car is meeting that standard. They are
    done in secret without any public input or from other state,
    and typically, they result in the lowest common denominator of
    industry practice and discourage innovation.
        Ms. Schakowsky. My time is up. So, we will leave it at
    that. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Gillian. Thank you.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
    gentlelady yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, 5
    minutes for questions, please.
        Mr. Olson. I thank my good friend, our chairman. Welcome to
    all of our witnesses. I do not intend to ask any questions. I
    want to deliver a plea from home.
        On March 31st, 2 weeks ago today, Huma Hanif left George
    Ranch High School to head to her home. As she turned onto her
    street in her neighborhood, she tapped a car in front of her, a
    minor fender bender. Her airbag deployed with an explosion and
    sent a small piece of shrapnel the size of this nickel into her
    neck. She died in her own car with her seatbelt still on. She
    was 17 years old. Here is a photo of the accident scene.
        I drove to see where Huma died for myself. It was so close
    to my home. Eight turns, through seven traffic lights, and
    three stop signs and I was there. It was hard to believe a
    young girl could die right there in such a minor collision.
        I know that we have made a lot of progress in getting
    recalled cars in for repair. Right now about 70 percent. I have
    been told 70 percent. That is great but I also know and I worry
    about another Huma being out there.
        I know that we can't quit at 70 percent. The only
    acceptable number is 100 percent of recalled cars repaired with
    a defect like that. I wish I could tell you how to achieve
    this. I can't. But I know that working together we can achieve
    our goals. And that starts by acting on the plea I promised at
    the start of my comments. It comes from Huma's brother, Faizan.
    It is a short video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Olson. That is Sheriff Troy Nehls. That is Faizan
    there, the brother.
        You can hear my voice. Your ears are working fine. The
    machine is not working properly right now. I am not saying
    anything. No comments.
        That is the airbag that was deployed. That is the part that
    was lodged in her neck right there, about the size of a nickel.
        That works.
        Get out there and make sure people know if they drive a
    vehicle in America, log on to safercar.gov. Check out the car
    online. Make sure you don't drive a defective car. If you do,
    get that car fixed. Let's make sure another Huma will never
    happen again.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        The chair would note that he deferred his questions for
    other committee members. And I will now yield myself 5 minutes
    for questions.
        So, OK, given what we have just seen--and I guess this is a
    question for you, Mr. Bainwol, perhaps you, Mr. Bozzella. And
    Mr. Bainwol, I am going to refer to the slide set that you gave
    us. And when you look down at the bottom corner with the stuff
    that was hard to read, the fatality percentage was 75 percent
    in cars that were older than 10 years, older than 2005. And
    that is 46 percent of the fleet.
        And that is the challenge because then if you look at some
    of the stuff that Mr. Rosekind had provided to us, the
    compliance with recall notices in that age set of cars that is
    older than 10 years is 15 percent. So, we have got a disconnect
    there.
        Now you said something, either Mr. Bainwol or Mr. Bozzella,
    that really intrigued me in your testimony because you talked
    about working with insurance companies. And I actually tried to
    call up my insurance card on my iPhone. I couldn't do it
    because I forgot my challenge question. But that is a separate
    issue. But your insurance company has your vehicle
    identification number, when you get your renewal on your
    insurance.
        And one of you mentioned partnering or getting insurance
    companies involved in this and to help with this. There is
    actually an opportunity. They have the data. And maybe we can
    talk to Mr. Rosekind about the larger data sets being able to
    go through more easily but that seems like a fix. And I know my
    insurance company that advertises heavily on TV and says 15
    minutes could save you 15 percent or more, everybody knows
    that. Boy, 15 minutes could save your life or your daughter's
    life. I mean that is pretty important stuff.
        So, what can we do to engage our state DMVs and your
    insurance companies? There is a way to get this data
    transferred and get these cars in and fixed. Is there not?
        Mr. Bainwol. The short answer is yes. We want to see every
    car fixed. We are desperately trying to communicate with car
    owners to move them to comply with the recall but we clearly
    have a problem doing that. And the older the car, the more
    difficult that challenge is.
        So, what that means is, it is an all hands on deck
    proposition. We are not trying to shift the burden. WE are
    trying to bring other people to the party to help get the job
    done.
        And it strikes us that DMV and the insurance world are the
    touchpoints that consumers engage with and you talk about the
    health of the vehicle at that point. And so they are a
    perfectly natural place to go to augment our efforts. They also
    have better data. So, we have custody of the name when we sell
    a new car but oftentimes with a car that is 10 or 11 years old,
    it is going to be sold multiple times, sometimes by private
    parties. And so the custody, the trail goes cold. And so the
    trail is hotter with DMV and with the insurance companies. And
    so we turn to everybody in the ecosystem to say help.
        Mr. Burgess. Well it seems like there is some opportunities
    there. And the insurance, when you have mentioned an insurance
    company, that kind of leapt off the page I think because they
    had your VIN number. I mean it is on your card. You have the
    card. You have to buy it. The state requires you to buy it to
    drive on their streets.
        I appreciate the efforts that the automobile manufacturers
    have made. I know I have seen full page adds in the Dallas
    Morning News on several occasions, I think last summer when Dr.
    Rosekind increased the recall notice.
        I don't doubt that the manufacturers have a very vested
    interest in getting a defective car back and getting it fixed.
    They don't want their customers put at risk. But there are
    other people, as you describe it in the ecosystem. The
    insurance company has that vehicle identification number and it
    is touched once or twice a year. People go in for an oil change
    two or three times a year. And then, of course, in my state, we
    have to go get a state inspection and comply with all kinds of
    things. That is another opportunity.
        I like your statement of an every hands on--all hands on
    deck proposition.
        Let me just ask you because this came up in an interview I
    was doing this morning with one of my local television
    stations. And they said they had a viewer who had received a
    recall notice and was trying to get her car fixed and there was
    no part available. How would you address that viewer? What can
    we tell her?
        Mr. Bozzella. It is a very important question, Mr.
    Chairman. And first, the customer should call the manufacturer.
    It is very important that the customer call the manufacturer
    and explain the situation, the vehicle, the VIN and listen to
    the advice and counsel of the company that will tell them what
    the parts availability situation is.
        The customer should also reach out to the dealer and get
    additional information about how the dealer is handling parts
    flow into the dealership and the repair.
        I think these are really very, very important questions but
    I would start very much with calling the manufacturer and
    asking what that specific manufacturer's situation is.
        Mr. Burgess. So, here is the real world situation. It is
    the third or fourth owner. They didn't buy it from a dealer but
    they know what the make of the automobile is. So, go to a Web
    site and get an 800 number? What are the practical steps that
    that person--they took it to a garage. They said we would like
    to help you but we can't get that right now, they are on back
    order. That person should call the dealer--not the dealer but
    the manufacturer at an 800 number they can find on internet
    down at their library if they don't have access to a computer?
        Mr. Bozzella. That is correct. They can find the 800
    number. They can go to the Web site. You will many
    manufacturers have information on the Web sites specifically
    related to an open recall. So, there is important information
    both at the Web site and on caller assistance lines and
    consumer assistance lines. And I think this is very important
    in addition to going to safercar.gov.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, I have gone way over time but I do want
    to ask one additional question because we dealt with a problem
    with an ignition switch a year, year and a half ago, 2 years
    ago. Now, we don't hear about that any longer. Is that we don't
    hear about it because the problem has been fixed and everyone
    has brought their cars in and gotten the recall taken care of
    on the key that was switching off on the ignition or why is it
    that we are not hearing any longer about those defects? Are
    they all done? Are we at 100 percent compliance?
        Mr. Bainwol. I don't know what the actual compliance rate
    is but we will check it and come back to you.
        Mr. Burgess. I appreciate that.
        I am going to yield back to myself and recognize Mr.
    Guthrie from Kentucky for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    committee and thank you, everybody, for being here.
        My first questions are on cybersecurity. And Mr. Bainwol,
    Mr. Bozzella, could you provide information--you brought an
    update on the Auto ISAC Information Sharing and Analysis
    Center. How much information sharing is occurring between
    members of the Auto ISAC? And have any vulnerabilities been
    uncovered that were not previously known to certain ISAC
    members through the information sharing?
        Mr. Bainwol. I will go first. So, the ISAC is up and
    running. It was stood up by the end of last year. So, the
    portal is working.
        There is an exchange, at thread information. We have also
    brought on--begun the process of bringing in suppliers. NHTSA
    has been briefed.
        So, we are making progress. We are also involved in a best
    practices effort, where the framework has already been
    established. And we will be rolling it out in more detail by
    the summer.
        As Dr. Rosekind mentioned, there has never been a market
    cyber-attack just yet but we know it is coming and we are the
    first industry to get ahead of the curve, to establish and ISAC
    before an event actually occurs.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. Anything to add to that?
        So, I will ask another question on that. Should cyber
    vulnerabilities in vehicles be approached differently in terms
    of the recall response from the agency and reporting
    requirements from automakers than traditional safety defects
    found in the motor vehicles?
        Mr. Bozzella. It is an important question. When is a
    vulnerability a defect and when is it not a defect? This is a
    question that the agency is currently reviewing. It is a
    conversation that we are having within the ISAC discussion
    among the automotive associations. And it really does speak to
    why it is so important that we extend the cybersecurity best
    practices framework that we have already announced and start to
    build out those cyber best practices. It is critical that we
    design cyber security and that we think about it, not only
    think about it but act on it throughout the design process,
    throughout the manufacturing process and throughout the
    ownership process.
        Mr. Guthrie. Should dealing with cyber issues be treated
    within the recall system like safety defects? The system we
    have today, should cyber issues be treated similarly or should
    there be a separate way to deal with that?
        Mr. Bozzella. I think the short answer is it depends on the
    circumstances. A vulnerability is not by definition a defect.
        Mr. Guthrie. Right.
        Mr. Bozzella. So, I think you have to start there. And then
    the question is what is it that we are addressing with regard
    to the systems in the vehicle and perhaps more broadly.
        But a vulnerability is not, itself, an indication of a
    defect.
        Mr. Guthrie. I guess you have to say everything is
    vulnerable to some degree, hopefully a very limited degree but
    everything would be somewhat vulnerable, I guess.
        Mr. Bainwol. When you slash a tire on a car, the tire,
    itself is not defective. It is a malicious act. And so we think
    that to some extend that does apply.
        I think it is also important just to--Dr. Rosekind made the
    point earlier today that the cybersecurity issue requires
    nimbleness. And one of the topics of discussion, not to open up
    a can of worms but to go ahead and maybe go there a bit is how
    do you manage change in a world in which technology and
    innovation is happening very quickly.
        And what Dr. Rosekind was saying was regulation does not
    necessarily work fast enough to deal with the rate of
    innovation. And so that is a very, very important point and
    certainly is true in the cyber case.
        Mr. Guthrie. A quick question. I am going to turn to
    Proactive Safety Principles and stick with you two for a
    second.
        What is the timing for implementation of each of these
    Proactive Safety Principles? And are you or member companies
    having regular meetings with NHTSA to coordinate the
    implementation of the principles?
        Mr. Bozzella. We are working as associations to coordinate
    the process. That coordination is already taking place and we
    are in communication with NHTSA right now, as a matter of fact,
    at the level of engagement with the administrator directly and
    then more broadly.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, I will go ahead and go to Mrs. Wilson. How
    will the Proactive Safety Principles be reflected in the work
    suppliers do with automakers or in the aftermarket context?
        Ms. Wilson. Well, we have been asked by NHTSA and we are
    now currently drafting our own principles that are--we have a
    thousand members. So, it is going to take it a little bit
    longer to review them. And obviously, we want to reflect both
    the responsibilities that our OE suppliers have with vehicle
    manufacturers but also the impact of the aftermarket.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
        Ms. Wilson. We support the principles that were laid out
    but, obviously, we feel like there is some other initiatives
    that we think that are important for us to also address.
        Mr. Guthrie. I just have a couple of seconds. So, Mr.
    Wilson, how would it affect auto recyclers, the Safety
    Principles?
        Mr. Wilson. I think on the automotive recycler side, I
    would sort of lump us in to independent operators within that
    $300 billion aftermarket space. And again, to make sure that
    cybersecurity is protected.
        You have other issues, security issues with vehicles that
    the amount of folks that are able to work on those vehicles is
    very, very limited based on those security concerns. And so we
    have got to find a way to make sure that the independent
    operators out there can work in that space, that they are not
    blacklisted from working on that.
        And I think the European Union has put in some good
    language to work on that.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you. It is the chairman's time
    now. I don't know if you want to give her a chance. Do you want
    her to respond? If the chairman allows.
        Mr. Burgess. Proceed.
        Ms. Wilson. Just one quick thing on the aftermarket, the
    cybersecurity. There is some real work going on within the
    industry. We talked about how we are training mechanics and
    training folks who are going to service the vehicles and so the
    consumer would know when you take a vehicle to auto repair
    shop, that they are dealing with someone who knows how to deal
    with security issues.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. If the chairman allows.
        Ms. Gillian. Could I just add one thing? I know that Mr.
    Bainwol talked about voluntary standards. And on cybersecurity,
    I think that is a really strong case where we don't want
    voluntary standards because voluntary means just that. You
    don't have to abide by them.
        And I think as we enter this brave new world of driverless
    cars and the fear of cybersecurity problems, that that is when
    we really need an agency like NHTSA setting those minimum
    standards, so that everybody is playing by the same rules and
    that consumers can be confident that these are not something
    that one automaker decides to abide by and the other ones say
    well, it is kind of expensive, we don't want to do this.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you. My time is way over and so I
    appreciate the chairman's indulgence and your answers. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, the chair
    would inquire of the gentlelady from Illinois if she has
    concluded questioning her thought?
        Ms. Schakowsky. I do not and I need to go.
        Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady needs to go.
        So, and it came up, Mr. Bainwol, Mr. Bozzella, and with
    you, Mr. Wilson, the all hands on deck nature of this. And we
    heard the very emotional testimony from Mr. Olson, who has now
    lost two constituents to an airbag rupture. And it is
    important. We have a role. You have a role. Perhaps we can
    enlist help from insurance companies and state DMVs.
        But let me just once again stress, moms and dads, brothers
    and sisters, you have a role. And this data is easily
    accessible to you. The lower left hand of your windshield is
    your vehicle identification number, just inside the driver's
    side doorpost, behind as you get in and out of the car on the
    driver's side. Safercar.gov. Safe with an R car.gov and you can
    query the database. Any time you take your car in for service,
    you would ask the dealer have you queried the database.
        This data will change. It is not static. We heard this
    morning about another 30,000 cars that have been added for a
    recall. So, the database, you can't just check it the first of
    the year and be done with it. You need to check from time to
    time. Perhaps an appropriate interval is when you take your car
    in for service. But this has been, obviously a very important
    hearing and I do want to thank all of our witnesses for being
    here today.
        Before I conclude, I would like to submit the following
    documents for the record by unanimous consent: a letter from
    RMA, a letter from PCI, a letter to the National Automobile
    Dealers Association.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
    they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
    the record.
        Oh, and I forgot. I will have a question dealing with the
    event data recorders that are in automobiles. And as to the
    ownership of that data, who has title to that information? This
    actually came up when we did the uncommanded acceleration
    hearings several years ago. Who owns the data in the electronic
    data recorders? And I will submit that for the record.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I have one as well, if I could request.
        Mr. Burgess. Sure.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I would like to submit for the record the
    letter that we received from Mrs. Houck and Mr. Brangman. Did
    you already do that?
        Mr. Burgess. Yes, I did.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, I am sorry. Thank you.
        Mr. Burgess. I ask witnesses to submit their responses to
    written questions within 10 business days upon receipt of the
    questions.
        It has been a good hearing. I think we have learned a lot.
    I think we all recognize that there is still a lot to do and I
    encourage people to check the NHTSA Web site. It is extremely
    important.
        With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]