[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, [email protected].
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]