[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING WAYS TO IMPROVE VEHICLE AND ROADWAY SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 21, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-87
[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
98-780 WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Ranking Member
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Massachusetts
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana officio)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Witnesses
Mark Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration................................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 170
Maneesha Mithal, Associate Director, Division of Privacy And
Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission.................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 184
Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.................................................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 188
John Bozzella, President and CEO, Global Automakers.............. 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association...................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Answers to submitted questions............................... 205
Greg Dotson, Vice President for Energy Policy, Center for
American Progress.............................................. 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Answers to submitted questions............................... 212
Joan Claybrook, Former Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Peter Welch, President, National Automobile Dealers Association.. 105
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Answers to submitted questions............................... 216
Michael Wilson, CEO, Automotive Recyclers Association............ 114
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Answers to submitted questions............................... 221
Submitted Material
Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
submitted by Mrs. Capps........................................ 138
Statement of Carol Houck in support of H.R. 2198, submitted by
Mrs. Capps..................................................... 141
Statements of GM in support of H.R. 2198, submitted by Mr. Pitts. 143
Statement of environmental, science, and safety organizations,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................................... 146
Statement of the American Car Rental Association, submitted by
Mr. Burgess.................................................... 148
Statement of the Auto Care Association8, submitted by Mr. Burgess 153
Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr.
Burgess........................................................ 155
Statement of the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, submitted by Mr. Burgess....................... 157
Statement of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association,
submitted by Mr. Burgess \1\...................................
Statement of the Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by
Mr. Burgess.................................................... 162
Statement of auto recyclers, submitted by Mr. Harper............. 168
----------
\1\ Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if17/
20151021/104070/hhrg-114-if17-20151021-sd006.pdf.
EXAMINING WAYS TO IMPROVE VEHICLE AND ROADWAY SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
Guthrie, Olson, Bilirakis, Brooks, Upton (ex officio),
Schakowsky, Kennedy, Cardenas, Butterfield, Welch, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Also present: Representative Capps.
Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; James
Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade;
Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Graham Dufault,
Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich,
Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Paul Nagle, Chief
Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Olivia Trusty,
Professional Staff, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan
Vorbach, Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade;
Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Jeff Carroll, Staff Director; Lisa Goldman, Counsel;
Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; and Josh Lewis, EPA Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. The committee will come to order. And good
morning. I want to welcome everyone to our hearing today:
``Examining Ways to Improve Vehicle and Roadway Safety.''
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of an
opening statement.
Certainly, lives depend on the safety of cars, safety of
trucks, and on the roads themselves in the United States. And
on the whole, the data is good around the decrease in
fatalities against miles driven. But the hearings over the last
2 years have certainly underlined the severity of problems that
do exist, and there is no room for going slow when it comes to
safety. And certainly, deception cannot and will not be
tolerated.
So it is incumbent upon us in the Congress, us on the
committee, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
vehicle manufacturers, and others in the automotive industry to
ensure absolute compliance with current federal motor vehicle
safety standards and processes. Lives depend on it.
It is also our responsibility to revisit the adequacy of
safety standards and the processes that determine whether they
provide sufficient protections to our nation's motorists. This
past year, I think it has been clear to many of us on the
committee and certainly clear to me that this is not always the
case and that there is room for improvement.
To that end, the discussion draft that we will examine
today includes modifications to certain federal motor vehicle
safety standards and their processes that will enhance safety
practices amongst automakers, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration itself, and provide more information to
motorists and consumers about vehicle safety, and foster the
development of new automotive technologies that will save
lives.
Some of these modifications include updating how the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publicizes and
makes recall information available to consumers. The discussion
draft will address how NHTSA coordinates with automakers before
publicizing recall notices to consumers as well. These changes
are intended to improve overall recall awareness by providing
drivers with more complete information about a safety recall,
and giving them the means to take immediate action to get their
vehicles fixed once the defect notice is received.
The discussion draft also contains proposals intended to
improve how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
collects and analyzes vehicle safety information, and directs
the agency to research the lifesaving potential of
crashworthiness features that could provide additional
protections to the driving public.
To increase accountability and improve safety practices
among vehicle manufacturers, the discussion draft extends their
remedy and their repair obligations under recalls, and
increases the time that they must maintain safety records to
facilitate the identification of potential defects, and
institutes safety incentives that encourage investment into
next-generation safety technologies.
After a record year for recalls, the draft we will examine
today also discusses roadway safety, vehicle safety, and is a
continuation of this subcommittee's efforts to restore
confidence in American motorists that the cars that they are
driving are safe, that the recall process works, and that
automakers and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration are capable of keeping pace with the technology
and the complexity of cars of the future.
I certainly want to thank all of our witnesses for their
testimonies. I look forward to an engaging and lively
discussion on these issues as we seek to improve auto safety,
save more lives, and ultimately benefit the driving public.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess
Lives depend on the safety of cars and trucks on the road
in the United States. And on the whole, the data is good around
the decrease in fatalities against miles driven. But the
hearings over the last two years have been sobering in their
severity. There is no room for slow when it comes to safety and
deception cannot be tolerated.
It is incumbent upon Congress, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, vehicle manufacturers and others in the
automotive industry to ensure absolute compliance with current
federal motor vehicle safety standards and processes. Again,
lives depend on it. It is also our responsibility to revisit
the adequacy of current safety standards and processes and
determine whether they provide sufficient protections to our
nation's motorists. This past year, it has been clear to me
that they do not and that there are areas ripe for improvement.
To that end, the discussion draft that we will examine
today includes modifications to certain federal motor vehicle
safety standards and processes that will: enhance safety
practices among automakers and NHTSA; provide more information
to motorists about vehicle safety; and foster the development
of new automotive technologies that will help save lives.
Some of these modifications include updating how NHTSA
publicizes and makes recall information available to consumers.
The discussion draft addresses how NHTSA coordinates with
automakers before publicizing recall notices to consumers as
well. These changes are intended to improve recall awareness by
providing drivers with more complete information about a safety
recall and giving them the means to take immediate action to
get their vehicles fixed once a defect notice is received. The
discussion draft also contains proposals intended to improve
how NHTSA collects and analyzes vehicle safety information, and
directs the agency to research the life-saving potential of
crashworthiness features that could provide additional
protections to the driving public.
To increase accountability and improve safety practices
among vehicle manufacturers, the discussion draft extends their
remedy and repair obligations under recalls, increases the time
that they must maintain safety records to facilitate the
identification of potential defects, and institutes safety
incentives that encourage investment into next-generation
safety technologies.
The staff discussion draft that we will examine today on
vehicle and roadway safety is a continuation of this
subcommittee's efforts to, after a year of record recalls,
restore confidence in American motorists that the cars they are
driving are safe, that the recall process works, and that
automakers and NHTSA are capable of keeping pace with the
technology and complexity of cars of the future.
[The discussion draft of the proposed bill follows:]
Mr. Burgess. With that, I will yield back the balance of my
time and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms.
Schakowsky, 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement,
please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing on a legislative effort to enhance auto safety
and improve the recall process.
I would like to mention at the outset that I think it is a
mistake to hold this hearing without a non-government data
security witness. This draft legislation includes provisions
related to privacy and data protection, and it would benefit
all of us to better understand the implication of those
provisions.
I would also like to mention that victims of the GM
ignition switch failure are here today in the audience. It has
been 20 months since the initial GM recall, and you would think
this committee would have acted sooner. As we see again today
with the Toyota recall of 6.5 million vehicles, these safety
issues aren't going away.
As a sponsor of legislation to achieve the goals this bill
attempts to address, I am happy we are finally having a
legislative hearing. Unfortunately, I believe we are having it
on the wrong bill. This discussion draft includes some ideas
from H.R. 1181, the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act, the bill I
introduced with Ranking Member Pallone and five other members
of the subcommittee in March. Those policies include
requirements that NHTSA undergo a rulemaking to improve rear
crashworthiness, and that every automaker has a U.S.-based
senior executive responsible for certifying the accuracy and
completeness of all responses to NHTSA's request for
information relating to safety investigations.
And I am glad those provisions were included, but it would
have been much better and more useful for the majority to have
engaged in a bipartisan consultation during the drafting of
this bill, as I have repeatedly asked, rather than dumping this
bill in our laps. Had that dialogue taken place, many of the
weaknesses in the bill could have been addressed prior to this
hearing.
The Vehicle Safety Improvement Act includes several
provisions that would enhance safety and improve the efficacy
of recalls, none of which are included in this draft
legislation. The VSIA would more than double NHTSA's funding
for vehicle safety programs. This bill provides no explicit
additional funding for the agency. The VSIA would increase the
quantity and quality of information shared by automakers with
NHTSA, the public, and Congress.
While there is a nod to those priorities in this draft
legislation, there is little meaningful change from the status
quo. The bill would require manufacturers to fix all recalled
vehicles free of charge rather than just those that were
purchased within the past 10 years. This discussion draft would
not.
Under VSIA, NHTSA would have new imminent hazard authority
to expedite recalls related to dangerous defects that would
eliminate the regional recall program ensuring that all cars
subject to a recall are repaired regardless of their location.
Neither of those changes are part of this discussion draft.
But beyond those missteps, the Republican draft legislation
takes egregious steps in the wrong direction. To take one
example, the bill would give automakers a break from health-
based carbon emissions requirements in exchange for adding
safety features that are readily available.
In the wake of Volkswagen's deliberate cheating on EPA
emissions standards, it makes no sense that we give carmakers a
free pass to pollute beyond standards needed to maintain public
health. This provision is a big win for the Volkswagens of the
world but does nothing to benefit the public.
It is about time we had a hearing in enhancing auto safety.
The safety of American drivers, passengers, and pedestrians
should be above partisan politics. I urge my colleagues to
engage in a bipartisan legislative process that will yield a
stronger and more comprehensive bill. I am anxious to
participate in that kind of dialogue. We still have an
opportunity to deal that.
And unless there is someone else who would want some time,
I yield back my time.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Upton, 5 minutes for an opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, a car isn't just how you get around when you are
from Michigan. It is a neighbor's job, it is a fiber that
connects our communities, and the backbone of our state's
economy, and we take great pride in the industry's
inventiveness, resilience, and creativity. It is what has
helped the industry become what it is today, a global leader in
vehicle safety, comfort, and superior driving experiences.
But over the past couple years, we have seen the best of
what the auto industry has to offer. It is no secret that I am
an optimist and believe that the future is bright for the auto
industry, for Michigan, and for the country. But unfortunately,
we have also seen safety shortcomings and flat-out dishonesty
along the way. I am glad we are here today to start talking
about making fixes to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and to the industry to ensure that cars are as
safe as humanly possible.
We are in the midst of an exciting time of automotive
ingenuity. What was once science fiction is now becoming
reality. This innovation is to be applauded, not only because
it will revolutionize driving, but because of what it means for
vehicle safety, the environment, and most importantly, saved
lives.
The staff discussion draft that we are going to review
today is a starting point to achieve those ends. It includes
proposals intended to foster greater vehicle and roadway safety
for motorists now and for years to come. Some pieces, like
having a corporate officer responsible for safety compliance,
certainly isn't new. Other ideas, like how to best ensure
cybersecurity, may need to further evolve. It is encouraging
that the industry is setting up an Information Sharing and
Analysis Center. There is also good talk about forming a
working group to address cybersecurity best practices.
The draft seeks to address concerns around recall awareness
and incentivizes automakers to invest in new safety
technologies that will indeed save more lives. It also includes
plans that will help modernize the work and mission of the
NHTSA to ensure that the agency is fully capable of keeping
pace with the innovation and progress of the industry in the
21st century.
This is a lifesaving endeavor. I look forward to a
thoughtful and engaging dialogue on the merits of each proposal
and what additional considerations should be made by this
committee. While we have a ton of witnesses today, I also want
to invite everyone with an interest to give us feedback on how
we can improve the legislation.
This committee is unwavering in its commitment to ensure
that the auto industry and the government are doing everything
that they can to make cars safer and protect the lives of the
driving public and their passengers. Our work continues to
improve safety for drivers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
A car isn't just how you get around when you are from
Michigan. It's a neighbor's job, it's a fiber that connects our
communities, and the backbone of our state's economy. We take
great pride in the industry's inventiveness, resilience, and
creativity. It is what has helped the industry become what it
is today--a global leader in vehicle safety, comfort, and
superior driving experiences.
Over the past few years, we have seen the best of what the
auto industry has to offer. It's no secret that I am an
optimist and believe that the future is bright for the auto
industry, for Michigan, and this country. Unfortunately, we
have also seen safety shortcomings and dishonesty along the
way. I am glad we are here today to start talking about making
fixes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and
to the industry to ensure that cars are as safe as humanly
possible.
We are in the midst of an exciting time of automotive
ingenuity. What was once science fiction is now becoming a
reality. This innovation is to be applauded, not only because
it will revolutionize driving, but because of what it means for
vehicle safety, the environment, and most importantly saved
lives.
The staff discussion draft that we will review today is a
starting point to achieve those ends. It includes proposals
intended to foster greater vehicle and roadway safety for
motorists now and in the years to come. Some pieces, like
having a corporate officer responsible for safety compliance,
aren't new. Other ideas, like how to best ensure cybersecurity,
may need to further evolve. It is encouraging that the industry
is setting up an Information Sharing and Analysis Center. There
is also talk of forming a working group to address
cybersecurity best practices.
The draft seeks to address concerns around recall awareness
and incentivizes automakers to invest in new safety
technologies that will save more lives. It also includes plans
that help modernize the work and mission of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to ensure that the agency
is fully capable of keeping pace with the innovation and
progress of the industry in the 21st century.
This is a life-saving endeavor. I look forward to a
thoughtful and engaging dialogue on the merits of each
proposal, and what additional considerations should be made by
this committee. While we have many witnesses today, I also want
to invite everyone with an interest to give us feedback on how
we can improve the legislation. The Energy and Commerce
Committee is unwavering in its commitment to ensure that the
auto industry and the government are doing everything they can
to make cars safer and protect the lives of the driving public.
Our work continues to improve safety for drivers.
Mr. Upton. And I yield the balance of my time to the vice
chair of the full committee, Marsha Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank our witnesses for being here today, and Chairman Burgess,
just to thank you for this hearing. I think you have chosen the
perfect day to do this hearing as we go back to the future, and
it is October 21st, 2015, and we all remember that movie and
the significance of that date. And here we are talking about
interconnected cars and using tablets and using this data. So
perfect day to have this discussion. And, Chairman Burgess, I
thank you for the draft that you have brought forward.
My constituents are truly interested in this issue. Whether
they work with Toyota or GM or Nissan or in the aftermarket
auto parts industry with AutoZone, everybody has an interest in
what we are doing. And here is the reason why: When you look at
the stats that we are going to have a quarter-billion
interconnected cars on the roadway by 2020, by 2020, and the
significance of that, as automobiles have become more
computerized, it is important for us to look at these
technological advances such as the vehicle-to-vehicle
communication. There is a lot of curiosity about that. We look
forward to getting some answers as to how this is going to
work.
And I thank the gentleman from Texas for initiating the
conversation and 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, 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. The title of today's hearing refers to vehicle
and roadway safety, but it is clear from the draft before us
that safety is not the focus. Instead of improving auto safety,
this draft weakens current environmental and consumer
protections.
Auto safety is a pressing topic that deserves our utmost
attention. Traffic fatalities in the U.S. grew by 14 percent in
the first 6 months of 2015. That increase comes after years of
declining traffic deaths. And injuries are also up. The
National Safety Council reports that medically related motor
vehicle injuries grew by 30 percent since 2014, and these
increases should concern everyone.
Earlier this year, Ranking Member Schakowsky and I
introduced the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act of 2015 as a
starting point for bipartisan negotiations with an eye towards
comprehensive auto safety legislation. Our bill would make real
improvements to ensure that the millions of drivers and
passengers across this country are kept safe. It gets NHTSA the
information, resources, and authorities needed to protect
consumers, and our bill also empowers consumers with more
information and ensures used cars are fixed before they are
resold.
Instead of those safety measures, this draft would give
automakers credits towards greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
economy requirements for incorporating crash avoidance and
vehicle-to-vehicle or V2V technologies in new cars even though
there is no apparent link between these technologies and lower
emissions. Manufacturers would get these credits for things
they are already doing, not as an incentive to improve safety.
Not only are manufacturers continuously touting their cars
as including the latest in crash-avoidance technologies, NHTSA
has already released its proposal to require V2V-enabled cars.
NHTSA also secured commitments from several automakers to
include automatic emergency braking on all new cars, and
furthermore, many crash-avoidance technologies are currently
part of a prominent safety rating from the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, meaning that automakers already have
considerable incentive to add those features to cars.
In the wake of the Volkswagen emissions fraud scandal, I am
alarmed that Congress would even consider giving automakers a
way around environmental regulations. In effect, auto companies
would receive a pass on pollution because they installed
communication devices in their vehicles. Just as Volkswagen's
technologies did not prevent NOx emissions, communication
devices will not prevent greenhouse gases. And this bill
essentially creates a congressionally sanctioned defeat device.
I am also concerned about the privacy and cybersecurity
provisions in this draft. As more high-tech vehicle safety
equipment is integrated into cars, strong consumer privacy and
data protections are more important than ever. But instead of
improving privacy or cybersecurity protections, this draft
gives automakers liability protection for simply submitting a
privacy policy or cybersecurity plan, even if that policy or
plan provides no real protections for consumers, and even if
those policies are not followed.
Because my time is limited, I want to turn to process for a
moment. I am disappointed by the unilateral approach taken by
the majority in drafting this legislation. For months we have
been trying to work with our Republican colleagues to draft
auto safety legislation that would meaningfully reduce deaths
and injuries on the roads. But instead of pursuing a bipartisan
approach, the majority chose to prepare this legislation behind
closed doors.
In addition, I am troubled that the Environmental
Protection Agency could not find a way to attend today.
Regardless, if the majority wants to open up the Clean Air Act,
then this bill must be the subject of a hearing and markup by
the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has the jurisdiction
and expertise to evaluate these proposals.
So, Mr. Chairman, this draft in my opinion fails to
increase auto safety, it harms the environment, and relieves
automakers from responsibility regarding consumer data. This is
a weak bill that I can't support. Yet again, I can only express
my hope that in the near future we can work together to make
real progress towards improving auto safety.
And unless someone else wants time, I yield back. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman. This concludes opening statements.
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, we want to thank our witnesses for being here
today, taking time to testify before the subcommittee. Today's
hearing will consist of two panels. Each panel of witnesses
will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed
by a round of questions. And once we conclude with questions on
the first panel, we will take a brief--underscore brief--recess
to set up for the second panel.
Our first witness panel for today's hearing is to include
Dr. Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration; and Mrs. Maneesha Mithal, the
Associate Director of the Division of Privacy and Identify
Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. We appreciate both
of you being here today and sharing your time with us. We will
begin the panel with you, Dr. Rosekind, and you are recognized
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF MARK ROSEKIND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND MANEESHA MITHAL, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PRIVACY AND IDENTITY PROTECTION, FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF MARK ROSEKIND
Mr. Rosekind. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
it is a privilege to represent the men and woman of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in offering the
agency's perspective on how to strengthen our safety mission.
Our mission is focused on saving the 32,719 lives lost,
preventing the 2.1 million injuries, and reducing the 5.4
million crashes that occurred on American roadways in 2013.
NHTSA will continue to use every tool available in pursuit
of public safety, and in just the last 10 months the agency has
done the following:
Strengthened our oversight and enforcement on vehicle
safety, issuing record civil penalties for recall and safety
reporting failures and making innovative use of consent orders
to improve safety performance in the auto industry.
Secured the first cybersecurity-related safety defect
recall in automotive history, and made unprecedented use of our
authority to explore measures to speed the most complex safety
recall in American history, involving Takata airbag inflators.
We have embraced Secretary Foxx's call to accelerate
technology innovations that can save lives--accelerating
proposed rulemaking on vehicle-to-vehicle technology;
undertaking a review of our regulatory structure to find and
address obstacles to safety innovations; announcing our intent
to add automatic emergency braking to our New Car Assessment
Program; and securing voluntary commitments from 10 major
automakers to make AEB systems standard equipment on new
vehicles.
And we have answered the call of this committee and the
American public to improve our own performance in identifying
and addressing safety defects, pledging to fully implement
recommendations of a recent DOT inspector general report on an
expedited schedule and to undertake dozens of additional
improvements to our screening, investigation, and analysis
processes.
These efforts underscore NHTSA's commitment to safety.
Whatever decisions this committee or the Congress make, NHTSA
will seek to do all we can for safety within available
authorities and resources. And with your help, we can do even
more.
DOT and the Administration have identified actions Congress
can take to strengthen NHTSA's safety mission. In the GROW
AMERICA Act, Secretary Foxx proposed significant enhancements
to NHTSA safety authorities, including imminent hazard
authority similar to that already held by other safety
regulators, criminal penalties for vehicle hacking, authority
to prevent rentals or used-car sales of vehicles under safety
recall, and significantly enhanced civil penalty authority to
provide meaningful deterrence against violations of the Safety
Act. GROW AMERICA and the fiscal year 2016 budget request would
provide significant funding to enhance our Office of Defects
Investigation and to more vigorously address emerging issues
such as cybersecurity.
These proposals are essential to enhance our safety
mission. And as I told your Senate colleagues in June, in my
judgment as a safety professional, failure to address gaps in
our available authority, personnel, and resources are a known
risk to safety.
NHTSA has been able to spend only a few days on our
detailed technical analysis of the staff discussion of this
draft legislative proposal that was released late last week.
And I would like to thank the committee members and staff for
their initial engagement with NHTSA and hope productive
conversations can and will continue. However, even our initial
examination has identified examples of significant concerns.
The discussion draft proposal includes a provision that
would provide fuel economy and emission credits to automakers
for deploying advanced crash technologies. I would just raise
two general points here: First, there should not be a tradeoff
between safety and public health. The American public expects
vehicles that address both safety concerns and public health
and environmental concerns. Second, the automakers already have
ample incentive to deploy advanced safety technologies--the
lives they can save and the injuries that they can prevent.
The discussion draft would require a system to notify
owners of recalled vehicles when they register or re-register
their vehicle with state motor vehicle agencies. State agencies
are one potential touch-point for owners, especially second or
third owners of used vehicles. But the costs to establish or
maintain such a system are unknown and the technology is not
yet in place, which is why GROW AMERICA proposed a pilot
program to work through these issues. Under the draft proposal,
States that do not meet the requirement would be kicked out of
the National Driver Register, an important tool that took over
a decade to get 100 percent participation that identifies
habitual traffic offenders and ensures that commercial drivers
have clean records.
The committee's discussion draft includes an important
focus on cybersecurity, privacy, and technology innovations,
but the current proposals may have the opposite of their
intended effect. By providing regulated entities majority
representation on committees to establish appropriate practices
and standards, and then enshrining those practices as de facto
regulations, the proposals could seriously undermine NHTSA's
efforts to ensure safety. Ultimately, the public expects NHTSA,
not industry, to set safety standards.
The draft legislative proposal would require NHTSA to
prepare certain recall notices in coordination with the
manufacturer and would prevent NHTSA from making them public
until manufacturers have made available complete lists of
vehicle identification numbers for affected vehicles. This
proposal would require NHTSA to withhold safety defect
information from the public and give the manufacturers
responsible for the defect control over the time line and
release of NHTSA-initiated recall actions. This proposal
weakens the agency's enforcement authority and is in direct
conflict with other congressional interests to increase the
transparency of safety information.
It would be very hard to argue that the best response to
recent events affecting auto safety is to erode NHTSA's ability
to regulate and oversee safety. What is required is to
strengthen NHTSA's ability to achieve its mission by working
together to address gaps in our authorities and resources.
Discussion of these and other issues is essential to our shared
goal of greater safety on America's roads.
I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosekind follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman, and the
gentleman yields back.
Ms. Mithal, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement, please.
STATEMENT OF MANEESHA MITHAL
Ms. Mithal. Thank you. Dr. Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, I am Maneesha
Mithal from the Federal Trade Commission. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the Commission's testimony on the
privacy- and security-related provisions of the discussion
draft to provide greater transparency, accountability, and
safety authority for the NHTSA.
The FTC has served as the primary federal agency charged
with protecting consumer privacy and security for the past 45
years. We have brought hundreds of privacy and data security
cases targeting violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
and other laws.
In addition to enforcing a wide range of privacy and
security laws, the FTC also educates consumers and businesses.
Most recently, the FTC launched its Start With Security
business education initiative that includes new guidance for
businesses, as well as a series of conferences across the
country designed to educate small businesses on security. The
next conference will take place on November 5 in Austin, Texas.
On the policy front, we conducted a workshop on the
Internet of Things where we specifically hosted a panel on
connected cars. We released a report on the workshop earlier
this year.
With this background, we are pleased to offer our views on
Title III of the discussion draft. We have serious concerns
about the privacy, hacking, and security provisions of Title
III.
First, as to privacy, we are concerned that the safe harbor
from FTC action is too broad. A manufacturer who submits a
privacy policy that meets specific requirements but does not
follow them may not be subject to any enforcement mechanisms.
Furthermore, even though the privacy policy is only required to
describe protections for vehicle data collected from owners,
renters, and lessees, the Commission could be precluded from
bringing a Section 5 action based on any privacy-related
misrepresentation on a manufacturer's Web site, even if the
misrepresentation is unrelated to vehicle data.
Second, as to hacking, Section 302 of the discussion draft
would prohibit unauthorized access to vehicle data systems.
Security researchers, however, have uncovered security
vulnerabilities in connected cars by accessing such systems.
Responsible researchers often contact companies to inform them
of these vulnerabilities so that the companies can voluntarily
make their cars safer. By prohibiting such access even for
research purposes, this provision would likely discourage such
research to the detriment of consumers' privacy, security, and
safety.
Finally, as to security, the bill creates an advisory
council to develop best practices. Manufacturers that implement
these best practices will have a safe harbor under Section 5 of
the FTC Act. However, the current draft may not result in best
practices robust enough to protect consumers for several
reasons:
First, at least 50 percent of the council's membership must
consist of representatives of automobile manufacturers. Because
any best practices approved by the council will be by a simple
majority of members, manufacturers alone could decide what best
practices would be adopted.
Second, the discussion draft contains eight areas the best
practices may, but not must, cover. In this respect, the draft
does not even create a minimum standard of best practices.
Third, there is no requirement to update practices in light
of emerging risks and technologies.
Fourth, by creating a clear and convincing evidence
standard for disapproving best practices submitted by
companies, the bill gives NHTSA too little discretion and would
likely result in the approval of plans that may meet the bare
minimum best practices on paper but are in practice not
appropriately tailored to foreseeable evolving threats.
Finally, the proposed safe harbor is so broad that it
would immunize manufacturers from liability even as to
deceptive statements. For example, false claims on a
manufacturer's Web site about its use of firewalls or other
specific security features would not be actionable if these
subjects were also covered by the best practices.
In sum, the Commission understands the desire to provide
businesses with certainty and incentives in the form of safe
harbors to implement best practices. However, the security
provisions of the discussion draft would allow manufacturers to
receive substantial liability protections in exchange for
potentially weak best practices instituted by a council that
they control. The proposed legislation as drafted could
substantially weaken the security and privacy protections that
consumers have today.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Commission's
views on the privacy and security provisions of the discussion
draft. We look forward to continuing to work with the
subcommittee, Congress, and our partners at NHTSA on this
critical issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mithal follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady. I thank you both for your testimony, and we
will move to the question-and-answer portion of the hearing.
And to begin, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Mithal, let me just ask you to clarify because I don't
think it was in the written statement that I had available to
me last night. You mentioned that there would be one of your
Start With Security business education initiatives in Austin,
Texas. Is that correct?
Ms. Mithal. That is correct.
Mr. Burgess. And what was the date that you gave for that?
Ms. Mithal. November 5.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. So for the benefit of our C-SPAN
audience, I just wanted to repeat that because, although my
congressional district is a little north of Austin, it
obviously will affect people in my State.
Dr. Rosekind, thank you for being here. Thank you for
always being very generous with your time and very forthcoming
whenever there are questions. Thank you for opening up the
doors of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
committee members to come and visit with you and see the good
work that you and the men and women employed there, the good
work that you are doing.
I do have a copy of the inspector general's audit report. I
am sure you are familiar with it. The inspector general's
report was issued in June of this year. Can you take just a
moment and go through which recommendations have been
implemented?
Mr. Rosekind. Certainly. And just as context I will be
clear that one of the things we did was actually commit to
fulfilling all 17 recommendations within a year, of which the
inspector general made sure I understood that is never done, to
actually make that kind of commitment. And we actually gave a
schedule. I mention that because the first one has been
completed 2 weeks ahead of schedule and we are on schedule for
all the other 16 at this point.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. Can you briefly describe the
operations for the council of vehicle electronics, vehicle
software, and emerging technologies, that council that is being
set up at NHTSA?
Mr. Rosekind. The current--I am sorry. I am just trying to
clarify----
Mr. Burgess. Is there a council for vehicle electronics at
NHTSA?
Mr. Rosekind. We have an office.
Mr. Burgess. An office?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. Right.
Mr. Burgess. OK.
Mr. Rosekind. And I am just trying to get my bearings here.
So in 2015 actually--and we can send it to you--we published
NHTSA and Vehicle Cybersecurity, and what that did was talk
about what we have been doing in this arena. And so it actually
describes how, starting in 2012, we reorganized our offices to
have a specific office that addresses that with specific people
looking at the cybersecurity issues related to electronic
controls in vehicles.
Mr. Burgess. And is there a separate office for vehicle
software?
Mr. Rosekind. That is in that electronic vehicles----
Mr. Burgess. Contained?
Mr. Rosekind [continuing]. control, correct. And we have
seven people in D.C. and three at our Ohio Vehicle Research and
Testing Center that is there.
Mr. Burgess. And who leads that office or that council?
Mr. Rosekind. Well, right now, the Associate Administrator
Nat Beuse is the technical lead on that.
Mr. Burgess. And that also includes the Center for Emerging
Technologies at NHTSA?
Mr. Rosekind. Correct.
Mr. Burgess. Is there a mission statement that has been
published for that office or that council?
Mr. Rosekind. I don't know if there is a specific mission
statement for that office, but all of that would be in the 2015
NHTSA and Vehicle Cybersecurity that we will send you.
Mr. Burgess. If you were to give us a thumbnail of what the
mission of that office is, could you do that?
Mr. Rosekind. Sure. You know, in 2012 I think this was
trying to look ahead. What has been interesting for me is
everyone saying this is an issue now. NHTSA has been on this
for at least 3 years, starting with a structural change to the
agency that would at least have focused people looking at this.
And they are looking at policy, testing, research, and
having continual interactions with the industry to make sure
that we are up on whatever the latest things are people are
thinking about.
Mr. Burgess. Now, Ms. Mithal, let me just ask you. Does the
Federal Trade Commission currently coordinate with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration on data privacy and
security?
Ms. Mithal. We do, yes. So, for example, we have had
several meetings with NHTSA staff. We also commented on their
report on vehicle-to-vehicle communications last year.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just take a minute. Dr. Rosekind, this
may not be entirely within your area, but I mean you are aware
that another subcommittee held a hearing on the Volkswagen
emission problem and the defeat device. Do you know, what are
the standard allowable nitrous oxide emissions under current
EPA guidelines? We were told in the other subcommittee that 10
to 20 to 40 percent more than was allowable. Can you actually
give me a figure in grams or liters what is allowable under
nitrous oxide emissions?
Mr. Rosekind. I can make sure we send you a technical
report so I can give you a specific number.
Mr. Burgess. That would be great. And I would also like the
information as to what that was in calendar year 2000 just as a
reference point. Would that be possible?
Mr. Rosekind. You bet.
Mr. Burgess. All right. Thank you very much. I will yield
back and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee Ms.
Schakowsky 5 minutes for questions, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I would actually like the victims or the families of the GM
switch failure to at least raise their hands so we know where
you are. I want to thank you very much for coming today. I know
this is of great interest to you.
I have a question for Dr. Rosekind. So this draft would
require NHTSA to coordinate with auto manufacturers before
publishing notice of any vehicle defect or noncompliance. I am
concerned about how this would affect NHTSA's ability to
independently determine that a recall is necessary and notify
the public if the affected manufacturer disagrees. It seems as
though a manufacturer could obstruct the notification process
at least temporarily by failing to submit the affected vehicle
identification numbers.
So let me ask you, Dr. Rosekind. How would requiring NHTSA
to coordinate with manufacturers before publishing a notice of
a defect present a risk to NHTSA's ability to issue recalls
when necessary
Mr. Rosekind. And I would like to handle this actually from
two angles. One is what you are highlighting. This actually
addresses NHTSA-initiated actions. Why that is important is
because many of the recalls that occur are initiated by the
automakers. They identify something; they move forward. A
NHTSA-initiated recall is because they have denied the need to
do that, and we have had to have the action. And so the concern
is, as at least currently drafted, basically the time line and
control of that would be basically under the control of the
person who created the defect.
But I think the other part really has to do with
withholding the safety information. I mean this committee, we
have heard you. It is really frustrating to put the information
out and not have the supply of parts ready, et cetera. But I
can't imagine any of us sitting here knowing that we had safety
defect information, holding it back, and then having somebody
lose their lives due to that defect when we had the
information. I mean that has been part of what we have done
from the beginning is make sure people get to make that choice,
not the government, that if they have that information, they
get to choose what they would like to do, including park their
car or get a rental or do whatever else.
So one has to do with the control and time line; that would
be the manufacturer. But the other I think is for us just to
think about the potential delay in providing information which
clearly we would rather do as soon as we have it.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. It is clear that the ability to
move quickly, then, in situations in which a vehicle defect
poses a serious public safety risk, perhaps even the life of
someone is essential, but NHTSA currently has no authority to
take emergency action. That is why in the legislation that Mr.
Pallone and I have introduced, the Vehicle Safety Improvement
Act, includes imminent hazard authority, which gives the
Administration the ability to step in and issue a recall in
cases where a defect substantially increases the likelihood of
serious injury or death.
So how would this imminent hazard authority be helpful to
NHTSA in carrying out its mission to reduce deaths, injuries,
and economic loss resulting from motor vehicle crashes?
Mr. Rosekind. And thank you, Congresswoman, for
identifying--we don't want to go from withholding information.
We actually think we need to be in the other direction, which
is what you have highlighted. There is a gap. Other safety
regulators have it. Imminent hazard would have allowed us to
get the Takata airbag inflators off years before. And that
authority, which, again, others already have, it not available
currently to NHTSA.
Ms. Schakowsky. Some of my colleagues have noted today
traffic deaths rose by 14 percent in the first 6 months of
2015. Injuries have risen by 30 percent since 2014. I am
concerned that this draft bill would put more strain on NHTSA
and its already over-stressed resources without actually
improving safety. According to one estimate, the number of
vehicles on U.S. roads grew by nearly 4 million vehicles from
2013 to 2014.
Meanwhile, NHTSA's budget has remained relatively flat over
the past few years. Appropriations for fiscal year 2016
continue that trend, coming in more than $70 million short of
NHTSA's request.
So, Dr. Rosekind, do you believe that stagnant funding for
NHTSA has made it harder for the Administration to do its job
of keeping unsafe vehicles off the road?
Mr. Rosekind. There is no question. The last time I
appeared before you I made the comment, ``give us more
resources; we will give you more safety.'' The equation is very
straightforward. If you give us more requirements at the same
resources, you will get less safety.
Ms. Schakowsky. This draft calls on NHTSA to conduct at
least eight new reports and studies without providing any
additional funding. Would you expect additional reports and
studies to require a diversion of resources from other NHTSA
programs?
Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. We need the technical and other
resources to produce these kinds of reports.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady.
The chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee,
Mr. Lance, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to you both.
The state motor vehicle agency in New Jersey has contacted
me, and I think this is a concern of various state agencies.
There is a section directing motor vehicle agencies to notify
drivers of open recalls on their vehicles when they are
renewing registration, and in New Jersey, that is once a year
and I presume that is true in other states as well. And there
is some concern at the state level that this would put an undue
burden on the various states.
I certainly understand the benefit in increasing
notification and recall remedy rates, and we all favor that.
However, I do share some of the concerns of the agency in New
Jersey. And could you please, Dr. Rosekind, comment on the
feasibility of your agency's coordinating with state agencies
to ensure they are able to have the information necessary to
inform drivers of open recalls on vehicles within their states.
Mr. Rosekind. And, Congressman, you just used the word,
which is the feasibility. And NHTSA held a Retooling Recalls
day event to see how do we increase to 100 percent? Automakers
have been doing research to understand not just about recalls,
how do we get remedies. But you have hit on the concern. There
is no technology. Nobody knows the cost. Nobody knows the
procedures to use DMVs to get this information out.
It is a great concept. There is super touchpoint to get to
people. The question is how to do it. And that is why in GROW
AMERICA the suggestion was for a pilot study to figure it out
and make sure that it would actually be effective.
Mr. Lance. And I presume the pilot study would be with one
or several of the various jurisdictions. And is there
anticipation as to how that pilot study would occur, Dr.
Rosekind?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. Some of that is outlined in GROW
America, and it involves two states. And just the things that I
mentioned, which is we need to figure out the technology, what
would be the procedures, what would be the cost. You do a pilot
and a couple studies obviously with your view to how you would
scale it for the country, with does it even work that way or
not?
Mr. Lance. Is it typical in the states that a vehicle
registration is once a year or are there multiyear
registrations in some of the states?
Mr. Rosekind. I believe it is annual. If there is an
exception, I can find that out for you.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Under the legislation, automakers would be required to take
reasonable steps to ensure that other entities adhere to the
automakers' privacy policies. And the automakers' privacy
policies, as applied to automakers, would not be subject to FTC
jurisdiction. What about the privacy policies of other entities
that would potentially have to adhere to the automakers'
privacy policy? So I request any comments you might have on
that.
Ms. Mithal. Sure. So it appears from a read of the bill
that the safe-harbor-from-FTC action would apply to the
manufacturers. So I would believe that we would still have the
authority to go after other entities under Section 5 of the FTC
Act.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of
my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
High-tech vehicle safety technologies are expected to save
thousands of lives per year once they are in broad use, and a
NHTSA report estimates that two types of V2V technology alone
could prevent more than 300,000 crashes. I am concerned,
however, that in spite of the benefits of these technologies,
Title V of this bill is based on a false tradeoff: vehicle
safety instead of environmental safety. Sections 502 and 503
would exchange greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy
credits for manufacturers installing advanced safety technology
and V2V in new cars. Particularly in light of the shocking
emission fraud scandal surrounding Volkswagen, I am worried of
any opportunity for automakers to avoid complying with
environmental regulations.
So let me start, Dr. Rosekind, I understand that NHTSA is
already working with auto manufacturers on including advanced
safety technology in more vehicles, is that correct?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. And if I could just--two things. One is
Secretary Foxx has asked us to accelerate anything that is a
new lifesaving technology. And so the vehicle-to-vehicle
proposed rule for 2016 will actually get out at the end of this
year. And, yes, I think we need to acknowledge 10 manufacturers
came forward and made a commitment to make automatic emergency
braking standard on all their vehicles. That was without any
mandates.
Mr. Pallone. So the proposed rule you mentioned would
require all manufacturers to make their vehicles V2V-enabled?
Mr. Rosekind. Correct.
Mr. Pallone. And that you said by the end of the year?
Mr. Rosekind. The proposal will be out by the end of the
year.
Mr. Pallone. And then you said manufacturers are already
installing these advanced technologies in their cars. Are there
other incentives such as revising NCAP that you are considering
to get these technologies deployed to all cars and not just the
luxury cars?
Mr. Rosekind. There are three tools. We like to use all of
them. Rulemaking is one of them. NCAP, the New Car Assessment
Program, which is under review right now, more to talk about
that in the near future. But I am also highlighting these 10
auto manufacturers who came together basically with IIHS, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and NHTSA to do this on
their own. These are three different tools. And I really have
been pushing collaboration and the opportunity to expedite and
expand safety beyond the minimums that we get from rulemaking.
Mr. Pallone. So again, a requirement that V2V be installed
in every new vehicle is already in the pipeline, and you said
that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety already
requires--I don't know if you mentioned this--requires the
vehicle to be equipped with certain advanced safety
technologies to qualify for its top safety ratings. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rosekind. That is correct.
Mr. Pallone. And then you said you worked with IIHS to get
certain commitments on technologies for manufacturers?
Mr. Rosekind. Correct. And in January we announced that
automatic emergency braking is being added to NCAP, and there
are further changes that are coming soon.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I think most consumers would like to have
a car that is both fuel efficient and safe. That makes sense.
Do you support giving automakers CAFE credits for installing
advanced automotive technologies?
Mr. Rosekind. I think the general principles that I stated
are pretty important here. The American public expects both
safety and public health. And the second part is I really hope
that the manufacturers have enough incentive for lifesaving
technologies. Those are going to be the lives they save and the
injuries they prevent by putting those advanced technologies in
their vehicles.
Mr. Pallone. So do you want to give me an opinion, though,
whether you like or support this idea of giving the automakers
the CAFE credits because they install these advanced auto
technologies?
Mr. Rosekind. And we will provide sort of detailed
technical analysis on that, but we don't think there should be
a compromise. You should be able to get safety and public
health and environmental concerns addressed because I think the
incentives are already there: save lives, prevent injuries.
That should be the highest incentive that anybody needs to add
advanced technologies.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I appreciate that.
What impact would the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or
CAFE, credit provision in this draft have on vehicle fuel
economy? And how might that affect consumers who buy these new
cars? Do you want to comment on that? In other words, what
impact would the CAFE credit provision have on vehicle fuel
economy?
Mr. Rosekind. The credit?
Mr. Pallone. Yes.
Mr. Rosekind. I am not sure it would change the levels of
what are actually covered under fuel efficiency may not change.
It is more really the incentivizing, I think, that is part of
that proposal.
Mr. Pallone. And so do you want to venture a guess as to
how it would affect consumers who buy these new cars?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. That is the sort of thing I think we
need a little bit more time to technically--these are very good
questions, but I think we would want to get a little more
detailed before taking a specific position on them.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. All right. Well, thanks a lot. I
appreciate it.
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 your questions, please.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Dr. Rosekind, did NHTSA or the Department of Transportation
participate in the development of the NIST cybersecurity
framework, and will it participate in future iterations of that
framework?
Mr. Rosekind. We have ongoing interactions with all kinds
of government agencies, including NIST and DOD, et cetera. So
we are always involved pretty much in at least participating,
as well as having them participate in our activities.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Are there ways that NHTSA could currently
participate or facilitate industry efforts to develop best
practices for automotive cybersecurity?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. And in fact, if you look at the model of
having the 10 manufacturers come together to work on AEB as
standard, it is a model to be applied across all kinds of
issues, including cybersecurity. And so everybody has already
read the Secretary is planning on having a meeting with the
CEOs about the safety concerns that we have all been reading
about, and he has specifically identified both safety and
cybersecurity to talk to those CEOs about.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. And then another question kind of follows
what you just said. Has NHTSA and the auto industry had
discussion on best how to apply the NIST cybersecurity risk-
management framework to the development of automotive security?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes, those discussions have begun.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
And then, Ms. Mithal, by what standard does the FTC
determine if auto manufacturers have tested the security of
cars appropriately before putting them on the market?
Ms. Mithal. Sure. So our standard is Section 5 of the FTC
Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. So if a
company makes a misrepresentation about a security practice,
then we can take action.
An unfair practice is one that causes or is likely to cause
substantial consumer injury not outweighed by the benefits to
competition and not reasonably avoidable by consumers. So, in
essence, it is a cost-benefit analysis. So there is no such
thing as perfect security, but what we do require is reasonable
security.
Mr. Guthrie. Reasonable security, thank you. And then in
your testimony you discuss the FTC's Start With Security, a
business initiative. Can you discuss how that should be applied
to car companies and others involved in the connected car
space?
Ms. Mithal. Sure. So I can give a couple of examples. So
one example that we give in the Start With Security business
guidance is that companies should test products before they
launch them as opposed to launching the products first and then
seeing about problems later. So it is something that we call
security by design.
Another thing we talk about in our Start With Security
guidance is having a vehicle to accept vulnerability reports so
that companies can have their ears to the ground and know of
security research that is out there and evolving threats and
emerging issues in their devices----
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Mithal [continuing]. Including cars.
Mr. Guthrie. I appreciate it. I appreciate your answer.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts 5
minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman, Doctor, thank you very much. To the
panelists, thank you very much for your testimony here today.
And I want to thank the chairman for calling the hearing.
Many of today's cars contain a range of navigation,
telematics, and event data recording systems, among others,
that all have the ability to record driving history
information. Auto manufacturers, other third parties also have
access to this wealth of information. It is a bit concerning to
me, candidly, and I am sure it concerns a number of other
consumers as well. People want to know that their data is being
kept safe and being kept private, and at least when it is used,
being used with their consent.
So, Dr. Rosekind, I was hoping that you might be able to
start the discussion. The data privacy provision in this
discussion draft would require that car companies submit
privacy policies to NHTSA, but it does not give NHTSA any
authority to recommend changes or to set a standard for
acceptable policies. Is that how you read the legislation as
well?
Mr. Rosekind. That is how we read it, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So do you think consumers could be or should
be concerned that there is no ability for NHTSA to recommend
any changes?
Mr. Rosekind. I think the public expects and wants NHTSA
both to regulate and set guidelines, not the manufacturers, to
what the standards are that protect the traveling public.
Mr. Kennedy. And, Ms. Mithal?
Ms. Mithal. Yes, I think there are concerns that, although
the bill prescribes certain requirements to be placed in
privacy policies, it may not require the companies to follow
them or it may not provide enforcement mechanisms to require
the companies to follow those guidelines.
Mr. Kennedy. So that is where we are going. It is my
understanding that under the draft bill, an automaker will
receive protection from civil penalties and FTC enforcement
simply by providing NHTSA with a privacy policy that addresses
the required items in the draft such as whether or not the
automaker collects, uses, or shares data, and whether the
consumer has any choice regarding the collection or use. It
will not matter how a given company chooses to address those
items, though.
So, as I read Section 301, a carmaker can hypothetically
submit a privacy policy to NHTSA, violate that policy, and
still be protected from FTC enforcement. It means that a
carmaker can make promises to consumers about protecting their
data, break those promises, and suffer no consequences under
Section 5 of the FTC Act. So, Ms. Mithal, is that your
understanding of how this system is set up under the draft
legislation?
Ms. Mithal. That is our understanding and it is a real
concern.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think the bill provides sufficient
incentives for automakers to create and adhere to the strong
data privacy provisions for consumers?
Ms. Mithal. No. Unfortunately, no.
Mr. Kennedy. So if we have a situation where a car company
claims to have expansive privacy policies to protect consumer
data and then violates those policies, isn't that an unfair
incentive practice?
Ms. Mithal. Yes, it would be, and that would be something
that the bill would strip the FTC's authority over.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I also have some additional
questions about the anti-hacking provision, which would create
a civil penalty from gaining unauthorized access into a
vehicle's data or critical system. While we can all agree that
we would like to prevent bad actors from accessing our car's
control systems, some observers have expressed concerns about
penalizing independent researchers, or so-called white-hat
hackers, who hack into vehicles' systems to draw attention to
vulnerabilities or to conduct tests. In the past 6 months
alone, these types of researchers made headlines by uncovering
massive vehicle emissions fraud in Volkswagen and exposing
vulnerabilities in a Jeep by controlling it remotely via the
internet.
We also heard from several small local auto repair shops
that they think they could be precluded from accessing
important information they needed to effectively repair cars.
They suggest that non-auto dealers repair up to 80 percent of
all cars that are not still under warranty.
So, Ms. Mithal, do you have any thoughts on that provision?
In particular, from your expertise in reviewing data security
cases, could you envision a scenario where information could be
siloed so that repair shops could get enough information to
repair cars but not fiddle with, say, emergency brakes?
Ms. Mithal. So let me be clear. We agree that there should
be civil penalties for malicious hackers, but we are concerned
that this bill would disincentive legitimate security
researchers who responsibly contact companies, suggest that
they fix those vulnerabilities, and companies fix those
vulnerabilities to help consumers. And so we believe that the
bill would create an impediment to that. On the auto repair
issue, I would defer to NHTSA on that issue.
Mr. Kennedy. So you mentioned this a little bit. Can you
discuss the importance of those researchers to your data
security work?
Ms. Mithal. It is very important. Often, it is the white-
hat hackers and security researchers that are bringing these
problems to the attention of both the car manufacturers and
regulators like the FTC.
Mr. Kennedy. And do you have any idea on how to make that
distinction between white-hat and black-hat so to speak?
Ms. Mithal. I think that is something that will require
very careful drafting, and we look forward to working with this
subcommittee on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs.
Blackburn, for 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OK. Let's stay with this regulation issue. And one of our
concerns is a dual regulation, because as you all may or may
not be aware, we have kind of grappled with this. And, Ms.
Mithal, I know that you are with privacy in the internet space
with the FCC trying to get in on top of the FTC jurisdiction.
And that has caused a tremendous amount of confusion.
So let me go right where Mr. Kennedy was and let's talk
about the way you have got a manufacturer that can get the safe
harbor and then avoid that Section 5 enforcement if the
manufacturer is meeting those requirements that are listed.
Now, NHTSA already handles the issue of privacy in the
automotive space, and so what we want to do is avoid this
confusion and this dual regulation. So is the FTC going to
honor the recognition that NHTSA has this lead, and are they
going to honor the safe harbor provision and act in good faith
when they are reviewing these manufacturers' privacy policies
and making certain that they meet those requirements?
Ms. Mithal. So if I can make two points in response to your
question?
Mrs. Blackburn. Sure.
Ms. Mithal. First, the concern is that the safe harbor is
too broad in many respects. One example is that the privacy
policy requirements only apply to vehicle data collected from
owners, renters, or lessees. So, for example, if a manufacturer
makes a misrepresentation on a Web site that applies to
shoppers about how they are collecting shoppers' data, that
wouldn't be covered by the privacy policy but the FTC couldn't
bring action. So we have concerns about the breadth of the safe
harbor.
Putting aside that, we work very well with NHTSA and we
support the goal of avoiding overlapping and duplicative
requirements. But at the same time, I think NHTSA and the FTC
have different focuses. So, for example, NHTSA does recalls and
we defer to their expertise in car safety issues. At the same
time, we have the ability to get equitable relief against
companies that don't maintain privacy and security of consumers
in the form of, for example, implementing a security program,
getting outside audits, in some cases disgorgement and redress.
So we think that both agencies bring particular expertise to
bear and can bring different remedies to the issue.
Mrs. Blackburn. And you are committed to making certain
that we draw the lines here so that we don't end up with a dual
regulation or with confusion----
Ms. Mithal. Exactly.
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. Much of which exists--you all
have borne the brunt of this if you will.
Ms. Mithal. That is exactly right. I think----
Mrs. Blackburn. And consumers have been quite confused
about the reach of the FCC and the FTC and is it diminishing
your jurisdiction.
So as we look at this issue and knowing that cars are going
to be more interconnected, not less, that they are going to be
more computerized, not less, that you are going to have more
data and people are going to say what are you doing with the
data? How do you turn that into usable information? Then, this
is something that should be cleaned up and handled
appropriately on the front end.
Administrator Rosekind, I want to come to you for a couple
things. How is NHTSA addressing the data collection practices
of automakers and others in the automotive space? What kind of
formal guidance are you currently giving? Have you laid that
out? And what do you intend to do? Because we all know you
can't be technology-specific if you will. You are going to have
to umbrella this. So speak for just a moment before we run out
of time. Speak to that.
Mr. Rosekind. And I can just very quickly tell you some of
those are already clearly outlined, things like the electronic
data recorders that exist. There are privacy concerns there.
They, for example, don't actually collect anything about the
drivers. So that is just more a communications issue.
I think what we are now talking about is a lot of new areas
that we are just understanding because our cars are computers.
And I think you have highlighted something really important. It
is going to actually require increased collaboration between
our agencies for us to be able to apply our expertise so we
make sure we protect people, and when there are malicious
attempts to go after that data, we have ways to keep people
protected.
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, I appreciate that. And we know that
the data collection practices from the automakers and others in
the industry can be used to provide some increased safety
protocols. And I think consumers are interested in that, but
they want to guard their privacy and they want to make certain
that the data that is there is useful information, it is
utilized in an appropriate way.
I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Butterfield, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
the two witnesses for their testimony. I have been watching you
intermittently on television, and both of you look good on
television. So thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus my questions on the
rental car safety bill that I introduced with the support of
Ranking member Schakowsky and Congresswoman Capps, H.R. 2198.
The companion legislation passed the Senate with bipartisan
support as part of the Senate's highway bill, and it is
supported by the rental car industry. Many of them are here
today, consumer organizations and General Motors and Honda and
others. It would ensure that rental car companies fix recalled
vehicles in their fleets before renting or selling them.
And so let me ask you, Mr. Administrator--thank you for
coming today. Some opponents of the rental car safety
legislation have said that rental car companies should be
allowed to rent or sell unrepaired defective recalled cars
unless the manufacturer has specifically issued a do-not-drive
warning. Is there any federal standard for when a do-not-drive
warning must be issued?
Mr. Rosekind. Thank you for pointing that out because that
do-not-drive is issued by the manufacturer, not NHTSA. So they
are determining whether or not the criteria would be to allow
that to occur under rental or used car. So that happens
extremely rarely.
Mr. Butterfield. So state again for the record who decides
when such a warning is issued?
Mr. Rosekind. The manufacturer who has the defect that has
been created in the vehicle is the one who determines the do-
not-drive.
Mr. Butterfield. OK. Can you give us some examples of
defects where a do-not-drive warning was not issued by the
manufacturer? For example, has any manufacturer issued a do-
not-drive warning for Takata airbags?
Mr. Rosekind. That would be the example that I would give,
given that that is the largest recall in auto history for sure
and maybe the United States. There is no do-not-drive out on
any Takata airbag inflator recall.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. That is what I needed to get
into the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Houston, Texas, Mr.
Olson, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
Welcome, Dr. Rosekind and Ms. Mithal.
When I started driving in 1978, vehicle safety depended
upon turning wrenches and sockets, and now it is all about
keyboards and electronics.
My first question is for you, Dr. Rosekind. In NHTSA's
view, should cybersecurity weaknesses be treated the same way
as traditional vehicle safety defects? If so, what federal
motor safety standards is NHTSA using to make that
determination? If not, how is this addressing cybersecurity
weaknesses in vehicles?
Mr. Rosekind. So there are actually a few questions in
there and I will try to go to the core. You are right--things
have changed dramatically. And the Secretary and NHTSA are
really excited about seeing technology innovations accelerate
our work in safety. But cybersecurity is one of the areas that
is going to take a collaboration across government to
manufacturers and others who understand cybersecurity to figure
out what needs to get done.
We have all kinds of tools from rulemaking to all kinds of
voluntary efforts that manufacturers want to do, so we have to
absolutely acknowledge that the Information Sharing and
Analysis Center, or ISAC, was created by the automakers to make
sure that they could get together and identify and share
information, a critical element.
I keep pointing out that you can ask for all the regulation
you want, but in cybersecurity, nimble and flexible is
critical. By the time your regulations come out, it is probably
10 versions too late of what needs to get done. We are going to
have to identify current and new tools to deal with this issue
going into the future.
Mr. Olson. Is this using the NIST cybersecurity framework
to guide its work in keeping vehicles safe?
Mr. Rosekind. That is one source, but we have been in
contact with a full range, DOD, Homeland Security, DARPA,
anybody that has expertise, including private technology
companies of course that have done protection for our mobile
phones and other elements. So we are in contact with the full
range of trying to learn from them and how we can apply it to
cybersecurity in the auto industry.
Mr. Olson. And about data collection, Dr. Rosekind, Section
4109(a) of the GROW AMERICA Act would prohibit the rental of a
vehicle by a rental company if there is an open recall. I have
a few questions regarding data collection attributed to this
policy change in the highway bill. How many lives did NHTSA
estimate will be saved if every rental vehicle under open
recall is grounded by rental companies, as required by Section
4109(a) of the GROW AMERICA Act?
Mr. Rosekind. And I will get you that analysis. As part of
our technical assistance in supporting your efforts here, we
will get you that analysis for both used, as well as rental
cars.
Mr. Olson. How about injuries? How many injuries did NHTSA
estimate will be prevented if the rental car grounding
requirement in Section 4019(a) is enacted?
Mr. Rosekind. And we will include both fatalities and
injuries and, if we can, crashes in that analysis for you.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. And, Ms. Mithal, how many data
security cases has the FTC brought against car companies in the
last 5 years? Any idea?
Ms. Mithal. We have not brought any connected-car cases. We
have brought about 55 general data security cases in a variety
of sectors from retail to healthcare to mobile apps to
internet-connected cameras. I believe all the principles that
those cases stand for apply equally to connected cars.
Mr. Olson. So zero for cars so far?
Ms. Mithal. Correct.
Mr. Olson. OK. What is the Commission's expertise with
respect to the security of critical safety systems in vehicles?
Are there differences in how critical safety systems in
vehicles and should be treated compared to other critical
infrastructures?
Ms. Mithal. So our focus has been on process, so all of our
55 cases stand for the lesson that companies need to implement
processes upfront to make sure to protect against security
violations. So, for example, companies, including car
companies, need to hire people responsible for security. They
need to conduct risk assessments. They need to oversee their
service providers. They need to keep abreast of technologies
surrounding them and emerging technologies that affect their
areas. And that is very consistent with the NIST cybersecurity
framework approach.
Mr. Olson. And as Dr. Rosekind mentioned, we have to be
very nimble because this changes like that, and we have to keep
up with these changes.
I yield back, my friend. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California 5
minutes for questions, please.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and granting my request to participate.
The draft legislation before us, it touches on many issues,
and I want to continue to explore the topic brought up by my
colleague--well, actually, the two last questioners, Mr.
Butterfield in particular--the critical issue that has been
omitted from the draft: rental car safety.
In 2004, two young sisters, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck,
were killed when their rented Chrysler PT cruiser caught fire
and crashed. The sisters were returning home after visiting
their parents just outside my district in Ojai, California, and
had no idea that the car they were driving was subject to a
safety recall that had not been fixed, nor acknowledged, before
the rental company gave them this car. Despite receiving the
safety recall notice a month before renting them the car, the
rental company failed to get the free safety repairs done.
While federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new
cars subject to recall, there is no similar law to stop rental
car companies from running out dangerous recalled cars. This is
a clear safety oversight and one that can and must be fixed,
and that is why, as has been acknowledged, I introduced
bipartisan legislation H.R. 2198 with my colleagues Walter
Jones, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Butterfield to close this loophole.
Our commonsense bill would simply fix federal law to prohibit
rental car companies from renting or selling recalled cars.
The bill is strongly supported by the rental car industry,
consumer safety groups, General Motors, Honda, and others. The
bill did pass the Senate as part of the DRIVE Act. And a
Change.org petition to pass the bill recently started by
Raechel and Jackie's mother, Cally Houck, has been signed by
nearly 150,000 consumers across the country, yet I am
disappointed this issue is not even mentioned in the draft we
are considering today.
Administrator Rosekind, I know NHTSA and the Administration
have been working to address this important issue. Does NHTSA
support legislation to prohibit the rental of recalled
vehicles?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. Opponents of the bill erroneously claim that
H.R. 2198 legislation would not improve consumer safety. Given
NHTSA's support for banning the rental of recalled vehicles, I
think it is clear that you perhaps disagree with this
assessment. Would you briefly elaborate? Thank you.
Mr. Rosekind. New, used, or rental vehicles that have a
known defect should be remedied before they are on the road.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Despite the broad support behind
H.R. 2198, the auto manufacturer and dealer groups are fighting
against this commonsense effort. Under pressure, the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers instead proposed a potentially very
harmful alternative that only requires rental companies to
disclose that the vehicle is under recall before renting it
out. Their proposal only prohibits the rental of recalled cars
with do-not-drive notices, as was referenced, despite the fact
that such notices represent only a tiny fraction of safety
recalls.
Administrator Rosekind, last year, NHTSA provided a letter
to Senators Boxer and McCaskill expressing its opposition to
the Alliance proposal. Would you elaborate on why NHTSA
believes this proposal would fail to protect rental consumers?
Mr. Rosekind. I will repeat to be clear. New, used, rental,
if it has a defect, it should be off the road. And as we were
discussing, the do-not-drive is determined by the manufacturer
of the defect----
Mrs. Capps. Exactly.
Mr. Rosekind [continuing]. Not NHTSA. And it is very rare.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you for clarifying that and really
underscoring it.
Some opponents of H.R. 2198 have argued that many NHTSA
recalls are frivolous because so few of them come with do-not-
drive requirements. Does NHTSA issue frivolous recalls? By
definition, aren't all safety recalls due to serious safety
risk?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. And we have a specific investigation
process to determine those defects.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. And I will yield back my time, but
before doing so, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a November 2014 letter from NHTSA to Senator McCaskill
outlining the agency's response to the auto alliance proposal.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Capps. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
Seeing no other Members present to ask questions, let me
just ask the ranking member if she would like a second question
or redirect?
Ms. Schakowsky. No, I am fine. Thank you. Thank you to the
witnesses.
Mr. Burgess. Dr. Rosekind, I just wanted to make sure that
we offer once again the concept of people checking their
vehicle identification numbers against the database that you
provide, and perhaps you could just detail how someone would do
that if they wanted to check.
Mr. Rosekind. Chairman Burgess, every time I appear before
you, you graciously make sure that we provide information for
consumers to do something about recalls. I can't thank you
enough for that because I don't think we are ever done getting
the information out.
People can go to SaferCar.govand look up their vehicle
identification number and see if there are any open recalls.
What is most important is if they find something, they have to
act on it. Call their dealer, get it fixed.
Mr. Burgess. Now, what if, like me, they don't know their
vehicle identification number off the top of their head? Is
there a place where they can find that information?
Mr. Rosekind. And, good point, because I am not sure any of
us would know that off the top of our head. You can find that
at the bottom left of your windshield. It is usually on the
insurance card. So there are multiple places you can go. We
even have a mobile app you can look it up now.
Mr. Burgess. And very good advice. And our trip out to your
location, your fine people informed me that I had a problem
with my vehicle, not the one I was expecting, but nevertheless,
it was important information to have.
Now, unless people think that we just come here with
assigned talking points and we never listen to each other, I
also wanted to point out after your testimony here earlier in
the year, that very time we were doing the appropriations bill
for the Department of Transportation, and I did offer an
amendment that night because of your testimony during the day
that took $4 million from the Secretary's general and
accounting line item off the budget and moved it to your line
item on the budget for additional safety work. I think
afterwards when I discussed with you that the offer still
stands and I will be happy to discuss with you or even go with
you to the appropriate Appropriations Subcommittee when the
budget request is made to the Appropriations Committee next
year, because this is important.
Just one final observation and then I am going to go to Mr.
Cardenas. In the inspector general's audit report, your
response that is in the appendix to the auto report, your
response to the things that were brought up I just wanted to
highlight. One of the bullet points is use of a safety-systems
approach to look for possible relationships between a symptom
in one vehicle's system and a possible critical failure in
another system.
And this is prior to your tenure, but last year, we were
going through on another subcommittee the ignition problems on
the Cobalt vehicles and the non-deployment of airbags, that
being such a critical finding. It was of concern to me that
this would appear in accident reports, albeit over a 10-year
time span. And there weren't a large number, but nevertheless,
any time a vehicle airbag non-deployment occurred, it seemed
like that should be a seminal event and something which must be
investigated.
And you even outlined here to consider if it is possible
defect theories that do not fit with previously held
assumptions, in other words, look for another reason other than
something where you normally would. And I will never forget the
accident report where there were two vehicles involved in a
head-on collision. Unfortunately, it was not survivable in
either vehicle, but in one vehicle the airbag goes off, the
other it doesn't, and there you have got the perfect test case.
There wasn't a curb that was hit; there wasn't a tree that was
glanced that would perhaps jar the ignition switch. It was a
straight up head-on collision. One airbag works, one doesn't.
Why did the one not work?
So I am grateful to see that line item in your discussion
of the points that were brought up by the IG's report, and I
think that is of critical importance.
I am going to yield to Mr. Cardenas 5 minutes for
questions, please.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this opportunity and want to thank the witnesses for
being here to answer our questions.
Keeping in mind the millions of cars on our roads, keeping
them safe is complicated and expensive, the draft we are
looking at today does not address increasing funding for NHTSA,
though many of its provisions would certainly present
significant additional costs and responsibilities to the
agency.
Dr. Rosekind, in your testimony today you said the failure
to address gaps in NHTSA's available personnel and resources
are a known risk to safety. Can you explain how civil penalties
for violations of motor vehicle safety standards and other
violations affect those gaps?
Mr. Rosekind. All of the penalties that are collected go
right to the U.S. Treasury, so we don't get any of those for
our work.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. So no matter how effective you are or
even industry admits and/or forwards those penalties, there is
no direct correlation between the amount of work that comes to
your agency versus the amount of effective work that you are
rendering?
Mr. Rosekind. That is correct. And the last time I appeared
here I made this statement that if you gave us more resources,
we could deliver more safety, and that equation is very clear.
If you give us more demands without more resources, you get
less safety.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Well, thank you.
This draft does not address raising the cap on civil
penalties that NHTSA can seek for manufacturers for violation.
The Vehicle Safety Improvement Act would eliminate that cap. In
the past few years, there have been several widely publicized
scandals surrounding the auto industry, and in 2014 alone,
NHTSA issued more than 127 million in civil penalties.
Dr. Rosekind, 35 million sounds like a large amount of
money, but we continue to hear about new egregious safety
violations in the industry. In fact, NHTSA has had to be
creative in finding ways to make penalties appropriate for the
violations. And the current maximum penalty, is that enough to
be an effective deterrent?
Mr. Rosekind. No, and that is why in GROW AMERICA we
suggested a $300 million cap. No cap is good with us, too, but
at least 300 million is what is proposed in GROW AMERICA to
have a meaningful deterrent.
Mr. Cardenas. Now, if the $35 million cap were
significantly raised, what in your opinion would affect the
expectation of how the behavior of automakers may or may not
change?
Mr. Rosekind. I think our expectation would be, with
appropriate deterrence like the civil penalties, that we would
want to see a more proactive safety culture catch defects,
conduct recalls earlier and faster.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Would raising the per-violation fine and
eliminating the cap on civil penalties improve safety in your
opinion?
Mr. Rosekind. That is the intent, and we think its current
level is not the deterrent it should be.
Mr. Cardenas. And when was the last time that level was
raised?
Mr. Rosekind. Good question. I will make sure that is in
our technical assistance when we provide that to you, but it
has been a while so that the 35 million has basically been on
the books for a long time.
Mr. Cardenas. So for years now?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes.
Mr. Cardenas. And the curve on activity or the volume of
vehicles and the industry dollar amount value year to year, has
been going up?
Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. And if you are trying to make
that distinction, yes, our authorities have stayed at a certain
level while the number of vehicles--we are at about 265 million
on our roadways now--the number of recalls, et cetera, is going
this way while we have been staying this way. In fact, if you
look at the budget, which we talked about last time I was here,
really in real dollars, we are down from where we were 10 years
ago.
Mr. Cardenas. I constantly hear elected officials across
the country talking about how we should run government more
like a business. Does it seem like we are running your
department like a business when you just described the amount
of activity going up, the dollar amount in the industry going
up, et cetera, yet your budget and your ability to create more
safe activity is flat?
Mr. Rosekind. No. And I will make a personal comment, which
I have a different unique background, having been in academics
and as a scientist, had my own business, which consulted with
top 100 companies all over the world. And so I bring that
perspective for efficiencies, effectiveness, measure things, et
cetera, and it is one of the major frustrations basically of
wanting to do more with, you know, not enough resources,
people, money.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, I am of the opinion in this country
that we are fortunate to take public safety for granted in so
many ways. It is unfortunate that we are not fortifying you
with the resources necessary to keep us as safe as you can.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
And seeing there are no further Members wishing to ask
questions for our first panel, I do want to sincerely thank
both of our witnesses for being here today, for their time.
This will conclude our first panel, and we will take a 2-minute
recess to set up for the second panel.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, thank you to both our witnesses.
Ms. Mithal. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burgess. Welcome back. Thank you all for your patience
and taking time to be with us here today. We will move into our
second panel for today's hearing. We will follow the same
format as during the first panel. Each witness will be given 5
minutes for an opening statement followed by a round of
questions from Members.
For our second panel we have the following witnesses: Mr.
Mitch Bainwol, the President and CEO of the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers; Mr. John Bozzella, President and CEO
of Global Automakers; Mrs. Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President at
the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; Mr. Greg
Dotson, Vice President for Energy Policy at the Center for
American Progress; Ms. Joan Claybrook, former Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Mr. Peter
Welch, President of the National Automobile Dealers
Association; and Mr. Michael Wilson, the CEO of the Automotive
Recyclers Association.
We do appreciate all of you being here with us this
morning. We are grateful for your forbearance during the first
panel. We will begin this panel with Mr. Bainwol, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement, please.
STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS; ANN WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MOTOR &
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; GREG DOTSON, VICE
PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS; JOAN
CLAYBROOK, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; PETER WELCH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL WILSON, CEO,
AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLERS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL
Mr. Bainwol. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. Given the size of
this panel, I am reminded of what former Senator John Warner
said when he became Elizabeth Taylor's sixth husband. He said I
know what to do; I am just not sure how to make it interesting.
So here I go.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
12 global OEMs based in the U.S. in Europe and in Asia. Our
companies represent about 75 percent of the marketplace. Our
industry will put about a billion new cars on the road over the
next decade around the world with more than 15 percent of those
here in the U.S. That is a lot of steel and a lot of aluminum
and an astounding level of production with massive job and
economic implications. But even more striking than scale is the
game-changing innovation mobility that will generate enormous
social benefits.
Our companies are investing about $100 billion a year in
research, including the development of the next generation of
connected vehicle technologies. These technologies will save
lives, save fuel, and enhance mobility.
Over the last decade, your House colleagues at T&I have
invested substantial highway dollars to make smart vehicles and
infrastructure a reality. The bill they mark up tomorrow
includes an additional $175 million over the next 6 years.
They are making this investment for an important reason,
and that is because congestion wastes roughly 3 billion gallons
of fuel, 27 million metric tons of CO2 emissions
every year. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that
roughly 12.5 percent of congestion, 12.5 percent of congestion,
3 million metric tons is directly, directly attributable to
crashes. Thus, there is a direct link between reducing crashes
and reducing CO2 emissions.
But for this subcommittee, the focus is the potential of
this technology to save lives. Crash-avoidance and connected-
vehicle technologies offer us the opportunity to address the 94
percent, if not more, of all accidents that NHTSA attributes to
driver error. That is right, addressing driver error is
absolutely crucial.
You know the statistics. More than 32,000 people died in
car crashes last year, far too many. That number is 25 percent
below what it was a decade ago, but it is still far too many.
NHTSA has said that connected vehicles have the potential
to mitigate as much as 80 percent of non-impaired crashes. And
just last week, the Boston Consulting Group released a study
that Ann Wilson will talk about showing that advanced driver-
assist systems could prevent almost 10,000 fatalities and 30
percent of all crashes occurring annually in the U.S.
We should all share the goal of deploying these
technologies as soon as possible. How can we not? It is why the
modest incentives included for advanced automotive technologies
make sense. A connected car with crash-avoidance technologies
is safer and cleaner. It is not a trade-off. It is a
convergence of interest. This hominization of safety and
environmental gains that these technologies offer changes the
policy paradigm. It calls upon all of us to determine how we
can accelerate the integration of these technologies into the
fleet to improve safety, environmental, and productivity
outcomes.
So we applaud this committee for introducing the notion of
market incentives to save lives. If passed, the potential of
this legislation to prevent tragedies is very real, and the
impact on greenhouse gas emissions is also equally real.
While the benefits of the new technologies are profound,
connectivity and data also introduce new challenges, including
privacy and cybersecurity. We commend the committee for
generating new proposals here as well.
Last year, the industry became the first non-internet
sector, the first non-internet sector to issue consumer privacy
protection principles that build off of the well-established
FIPS and include heightened protection for the most sensitive
consumer information: where and how you drive. And what we did
was a floor for companies.
We are also moving aggressively on cybersecurity. As this
committee knows, automakers will soon stand up the Information
Sharing and Analysis Center, the ISAC, to facilitate sharing of
potential cyber threats and countermeasures in real time in.
Yet we hear you loud and clear. We do hear you loud and clear.
Even before the introduction of this draft, we know that you
wanted us to move further. So we are now moving forward with
the best practices initiative as well so that we have a fully
integrated approach to addressing hacking risks.
The future of mobility is extremely bright. We are on the
precipice of a golden era of mobility. Technology will make all
this happen. It will enable safety outcomes, more
environmentally friendly travel, and an economy that is more
productive because people and goods will be able to move much
more efficiently around the country.
This committee has started this conversation about the
future of mobility in earnest. We look forward to working with
you to build this new reality.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
Mr. Bozzella, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions, please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA
Mr. Bozzella. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today. I am John Bozzella, President and
CEO of Global Automakers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
thoughtful work on motor vehicle safety and for holding this
hearing today.
Our industry has been in the news a great deal lately and
not always for the best of reasons. This hearing gives us the
chance to discuss our ongoing efforts to improve motor vehicle
safety and enhance public trust through the research and
development of new technologies.
The draft bill released last week contains a number of
important ideas designed to advance our shared goal of improved
motor vehicle safety. We appreciate the subcommittee's
commitment to improving recall completion rates and exploring
innovative ways to address new and emerging challenges
associated with the development of vehicles that not only
actively avoid collisions, but talk to one another and to the
surrounding infrastructure.
In the time available, I will focus on three important
issues: 1) recall notification during vehicle registration; 2)
adoption of connected-car technology; and 3) industry efforts
to stay ahead of privacy and cybersecurity challenges.
Consumers should be informed of the recall status of their
vehicles. Global Automakers believes an effective way to
achieve this end is to use state DMV offices to notify vehicle
owners of open recalls at the time they register or renew their
registration. We now have some initial data that suggests there
is public support for this approach. In a recent survey
commissioned by Global Automakers and the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, we looked at how consumers respond to
and think about recall notices and found overwhelming support
for the idea of receiving recall information from the DMV. Over
70 percent of those asked about this issue supported not only
notification at registration, but a requirement that recalls be
remedied prior to registration. More research needs to be done,
but these initial results indicate that the subcommittee is
moving in the right direction as it explores ways to increase
recall completion rates.
We are also pleased that the draft bill recognizes the
substantial benefits associated with the installation of
dedicated short-range communications, or DSRC devices, that
allow cars to communicate with each other and the surrounding
infrastructure, leading to fewer crashes, less congestion, and
other potential benefits. NHTSA agrees that this technology
could be a ``game-changer'' potentially addressing 80 percent
of vehicle crashes involving non-impaired drivers. Encouraging
the fastest deployment possible of DSRC will spread the
benefits of this lifesaving technology more quickly and more
widely.
The enormous benefits of connected-car technologies
outweigh the challenges that come with living in a connected
world. As automakers pursue these innovations and the benefits
that they bring, we recognize strong cybersecurity and privacy
protections are essential to building consumer confidence.
To ensure the security of safety-critical driving systems
and to protect the privacy of consumer data, we have begun
establishing industry-wide cybersecurity best practices. These
best practices will allow automakers the flexibility to quickly
and effectively respond to the dynamic nature of cyber
challenges. This builds on steps we have already taken, such as
the creation of industry privacy principles to protect consumer
information and the launch of the Automotive Information
Sharing and Analysis Center, or Auto-ISAC, to share
intelligence on immediate threats and vulnerabilities.
Last year, U.S. automakers took unprecedented steps to
protect the privacy of consumers through the responsible
stewardship of information collected from in-vehicle
technologies and services and the meaningful disclosure of
privacy principles and practices. We engaged with privacy
advocates and the Federal Trade Commission during the
development of these principles. As early as January of 2016,
all major auto manufacturers will be accountable to the FTC for
these privacy commitments. We have questions about how the
privacy provisions outlined in the bill would interact with the
commitments that have already been made by automakers.
In August, U.S. automakers incorporated the Auto-ISAC. The
Auto-ISAC will enable secure and timely sharing of cyber threat
information and potential vulnerabilities in vehicle
electronics or networks. By the end of the year, we expect the
ISAC infrastructure to be fully operational.
Cybersecurity challenges in the Internet of Things are not
unique to automakers. Any approach to address cyber threats
should be consistent with approaches used in other industries.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Ms. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON
Ms. Ann 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 & Equipment Manufacturers Association. Thank you for
the invitation today to testify about motor vehicle safety
issues.
MEMA represents more than 1,000 companies that manufacture
components and systems for use in the light- and heavy-duty
vehicle original equipment and aftermarket industries. Our
members provide more than 734,000 direct jobs nationwide,
making the motor vehicle parts industry the largest employer of
manufacturing jobs nationwide.
Suppliers work closely with vehicle manufacturers to
provide cutting-edge and innovative systems and components for
new vehicles. In fact, suppliers manufacture more than 2/3 of
the value of today's vehicles.
Today, I will focus on the safety benefits of advanced
driver assistance systems, or ADAS. These technologies are
included in the discussion draft in the term Advanced
Automotive Technology.
As is widely recognized and as has been previously
discussed, motor vehicle safety continues to improve in this
country. The most influential safety factors are improvements
to vehicles' structural design and advanced vehicle
technologies, including ADAS. MEMA recently published, as Mr.
Bainwol discussed, a study prepared by the Boston Consulting
Group on the benefits of ADAS technologies. A complete copy of
the study has been circulated to all the committee members.
The MEMA study focused on current technologies that can
provide immediate safety benefits and form the pathway to a
partially or fully autonomous vehicle fleet that could
virtually eliminating traffic fatalities. However, the study
did find that a suite of ADAS technologies that are currently
available have the potential to prevent 30 percent of all
crashes nationwide, a total of 10,000 lives saved every year.
Today, however, relatively few vehicles on the road have
ADAS technologies, and their penetration in the market is only
growing about 2 to 5 percent annually. Since the vast majority
of accidents in the U.S. are caused by driver error, the lack
of adoption of these technologies within the U.S. fleet is a
significant missed opportunity.
I would like to take a minute and discuss exactly what ADAS
is. They can be grouped into three broad categories: those that
aid the driver, those that warn the driver, and those that can
assist the driver in performing certain basic driving
functions. Aid features include visual aids such as night
vision, rear-mounted cameras that enhance the driver's rear
vision, and adaptive lighting and surround-view systems.
Warn features alert the driver of potential dangers.
Examples include park assist, forward collision warning, lane
departure warning, which typically activates a beeper or causes
the driver's seat to vibrate when the vehicle drifts out of its
lane. Other warning systems include blind spot and rear cross-
traffic detectors and driver monitoring systems.
Assistance features actively engage steering, acceleration,
and/or braking systems as is needed in order to ensure the
vehicle's safe operations. Such features include forward
collision assist, adaptive cruise control, self-parking, and
lane-keeping assist, which actively returns the vehicle to its
original lane when it is in danger of drifting from it. There
is also pedestrian avoidance, which warns the driver of an
impending collision with a pedestrian, and in some instances
will assist the driver with steering and braking to avoid that
collision.
Better consumer information and education, as well as
market incentives, will increase the adoption and lower the
cost of these technologies, and MEMA supports the efforts of
this committee to promote ADAS technologies through the
expansion of the New Car Assessment Program and advanced
credits for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
We do have the following comments on the committee draft:
In Title V, Section 501, suppliers must be specifically
included in the Advanced Automotive Technology Advisory
Committee. Furthermore, we believe the 35-percent threshold
specified for inclusion of the technology on the Monroney label
is too high. Collision avoidance systems are currently
available, and if they are in new vehicles, they must be listed
in the NCAP rating as part of all new vehicle labels.
In Section 502, MEMA supports awarding credits for advanced
technologies for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions.
The use of these technologies will result in better traffic
flow, less fuel consumed, and fewer vehicle emissions. However,
there should not be a difference in the credits for vehicles
with at least three advanced safety technologies and vehicles
with one connected vehicle technology.
MEMA thanks the committee on its foresight to provide
greater consumer acceptance of ADAS technologies. The industry
is committed to working with you to establish new and
innovative ways to increase the adoption of these life-saving
technologies and to address other critical issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ann Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the witness.
Mr. Dotson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the
purpose of an opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF GREG DOTSON
Mr. Dotson. Thank you. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Greg Dotson. I am Vice
President for Energy Policy at the Center for American
Progress, a nonprofit think tank dedicated to improving the
lives of Americans through progressive ideas and actions.
The auto manufacturing industry touches the lives of all of
us. Many Americans rely on their cars and trucks to get to
work, to do their jobs, to transport their families safely. For
these reasons, the industry is regulated in a number of vitally
important ways: to minimize the risk of accidents, to minimize
our dependence on oil, and to prevent pollution from choking
our communities. The result is that today's vehicles have
attributes once believed to be incompatible. They are safer,
more efficient, and less polluting.
Today, I am going to focus my testimony on Sections 502 and
503 of the discussion draft. I have provided a lengthier
statement for the record, but I would like to highlight the
five important reasons that these sections are flawed.
First, the discussion draft presents a false choice by
asking Members of Congress to choose vehicle safety over
pollution reduction. That is an unnecessary tradeoff. The fact
is that we need both safer motor vehicles and cleaner cars and
trucks, and there is no reason the American people can't have
both.
Second, there is not a sound analytic basis for the
proposal. The bill would encourage automakers to use this
technology by giving them pollution credits for every car they
manufacture with crash-avoidance technology like automatic
emergency braking or technology that helps with congestion
mitigation like an in-dash GPS. Unfortunately, there just isn't
sufficient data to support these pollution credits.
In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Transportation examined this issue. The automaker
Daimler had argued that the agency should provide pollution
credits for crash avoidance technology. The agency said that
credits should only be awarded where the technologies provided
real-world improvements to fuel economy and pollution
reduction, the improvements must be verifiable, and the process
by which they are granted should be transparent.
The agencies determined that none of these factors were
satisfied for technologies used for crash avoidance.
Consequently, the agencies concluded that the advancement of
crash-avoidance systems is best left to NHTSA's exercise of its
vehicle safety authority.
The discussion draft would reverse this conclusion. Under
this proposal, Section 502(a) provides a credit of 3 or more
grams of carbon dioxide per mile to any vehicle that is
equipped with an advanced vehicle technology. The bill also
offers a credit of 6 or more grams of carbon dioxide per mile
to any vehicle that is equipped with connected-vehicle
technology. Three grams might not sound like a lot, but it is
many times more than Daimler argued to EPA was warranted for
this technology in 2012.
And although EPA is still in the process of determining the
extent of Volkswagen's violations, in all the publicly
discussed estimates, the excess pollution from the non-
complying VW vehicles is less than 3 grams per mile. The fact
is 3 grams per mile for every mile every day for every year for
every car adds up to substantial pollution.
Third, the discussion draft would allow more pollution for
using technologies that are going to be used even without this
additional incentive. For instance, just last month, 10 major
vehicle manufacturers publicly committed to making automatic
emergency braking a standard feature in all new vehicles. It
makes no sense to give these companies an incentive for
something they intend to do anyway.
Fourth, the loopholes created by this bill could only grow
bigger over time. Section 503(a) would authorize the Secretary
of Transportation to select any technology and award that
technology as many pollution credits as necessary to
``incentivize'' its adoption. There is no upper-bound limit on
how many credits might be awarded under this language.
Finally, the bill, as currently drafted, would curb the
role of States in innovating carbon pollution reductions at the
state level. As we have seen time and again, the States are the
laboratories of innovation. They have demonstrated countless
successes, and there is no basis for so easily stripping them
of their important role. We should remember that it was the
State of California that led the way in detecting the VW
emissions scandal.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
subcommittee, it has not been easy for the United States to
establish a regulatory structure that is transparent, data-
driven, technology-based, and effective. I urge you to reject
pleas for new special-interest loopholes and maintain our
current rigorous system. The American people expect a
regulatory system that cuts pollution and increases safety.
Let's not sacrifice one for the other.
And I would be happy to take any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dotson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
Ms. Claybrook, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Schakowsky and members of the subcommittee.
I am Joan Claybrook, Consumer Co-chair of Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety and former Administrator of NHTSA. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on such
an important issue, the safety of our families and friends on
our nation's roads and highways.
Let me share with you some important statistics as you
begin considering this bill: 33,000 deaths and over 2 million
horrible injuries annually in motor vehicle crashes; 801
manufacturer recalls and service campaigns of more than 63
million vehicles in 2014; 613 recalls already in 2015 involving
40 million vehicles. For these recalls, at least 200 people
innocently killed and hundreds injured because automakers sold
cars they knew had safety defects.
There have been House and Senate hearings over the last 2
years on faulty GM ignition switches and exploding Takata
airbags where I heard countless hours of testimony and
indignation expressed by committee members. There have been
over 2 billion in Department of Justice and civil fines against
recalls since 2010 because of the NHTSA enforcement and Justice
enforcement; total NHTSA safety budget, a measly $130 million a
year, a measly 130 million.
Eleven family members sitting behind me today and millions
of Americans expect their legislators to enact sensible
solutions for serious safety problems, one opportunity to get
it right.
Congressional hearings, media reports, and DOT inspector
general reports have all uncovered industry misconduct and
NHTSA missteps that put millions of Americans at risk on the
highway. The outstanding problems that need legislation that
addresses them are: a chronically underfunded and understaffed
agency responsible for regulating giant corporations and
ensuring public safety; a lack of adequate civil and criminal
penalties to deter automakers from putting profits before
public safety; a predisposition by NHTSA to needlessly withhold
information from consumers about vehicle safety problems that
thwarts their ability to legally challenge the agency actions--
all that is now changing under Mr. Rosekind; thank you, a legal
loophole that allows consumers to drive off the lot of a rental
car company or a used-car dealer with a vehicle under recall
but not repaired; and agency powerlessness to take swift action
when there is imminent hazard.
The draft bill will set a safety agenda for the agency for
the next 6 years. At a time when motor vehicle deaths and
injuries are climbing, stronger safety standards are urgently
needed. Serious problems have been exposed and new challenges
face the agency.
What does this bill due to enhance safety and equip the
agency with the legal and financial tools to fulfill its safety
mission? Very little. Instead, it seriously dilutes critical
vehicle emission controls and wastes taxpayer dollars by
turning NHTSA into the National Highway Traffic Study
Administration. The bill diverts precious government resources
to conduct at least 16 burdensome studies and reports and put
the auto industry in the driver's seat on vehicle safety at the
expense of public safety.
Under the draft bill, automakers can barter and trade off
fuel economy and safety when we know the technologies exist to
build safe, fuel-efficient, and clean cars. Other provisions
delay public notification of recalls until NHTSA is in receipt
of all the vehicle identification numbers subject to the
recall, and NHTSA is required to draft its notice of a safety
defect and noncompliance in coordination with the manufacturer,
something that a regulator should not be limited to.
The bill provides a blanket exemption for motor vehicle
safety standards for replica and other vehicles intended for
testing and evaluation, and these giveaways are unnecessary
because NHTSA already has a regulatory process to do this in
the law.
Furthermore, the draft bill provides a breathtaking double
standard for manufacturers at the expense of consumers. And
Section 406 mandates that industry failure to follow DOT
voluntary guidelines cannot be used as evidence in a civil
action. However, industry may use compliance with those same
guidelines to show compliance with federal regulations in the
same civil action.
The real intention of these and other provisions setting up
industry-stacked advisory committees and councils are not to
advance safety but to thwart NHTSA from regulating industry and
to keep the public out.
Problem-solving proposals to the problems identified by the
hearings that you have heard again and again are found in H.R.
1181 that has been introduced by Ranking Member Frank Pallone
and Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky. It is a
comprehensive approach that includes tougher penalties, eminent
hazard authority, improved transparency, pedestrian safety
measures, prohibitions on renting vehicles or selling used cars
under recall, judicial review of final agency actions on
recalls, and revolving-door protections, and an overdue
direction to the agency to address the tragedies of unattended
children left behind in a vehicle, and some 200 of them die a
year.
Unless this committee acts to pass meaningful legislation
that will prevent illegal and immoral behavior by the auto
industry, this string of scandals will continue: Firestone
tires, Toyota sudden acceleration, GM faulty switches, Takata
exploding airbags, and now cheating VW cells. There are no
credible excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of
consumer protections, increased penalties for corporate
misbehavior, strengthening NHTSA's authority and resources, and
improve vehicle safety standards that can really save lives and
reduce injuries and prevent industry fraud.
Thank you so much for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PETER WELCH
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, my name
is Peter K. Welch, not to be confused with anybody else, and I
am the President of the National Automobile Dealers
Association. NADA is a nationwide trade association that
represents the interests of over 16,000 franchised new car and
truck dealers throughout the country.
The draft bill before you today contains a number of
provisions NADA supports, including several provisions to
improve recall notification and completion rates. Dealers
support a 100 percent recall completion rate. And again, we
commend the subcommittee for its efforts to help us achieve
that goal.
The recall system Congress enacted depends on new car
dealers to fix the millions of vehicles that are now under
recall. Last year alone, our members performed 59 million
warranty and recall repairs, and unfortunately, we are set to
break that record again today with the burgeoning number of
recalls that are being issued.
For the owners of recalled vehicles, it is their local
dealer who remedies the defect or nonconformance and at no
charge to the owner. When owners receive a recall notice but
fail to act, many dealers on their own initiative will contact
their customers to schedule a service appointment. One of our
Texas dealer members found that sending bright pink postcards
reminding owners that their vehicles were under recall is an
effective way to get those cars into the service bay and to get
them fixed.
Currently, the overall recall completion rate is around 75
percent, which means there is lots of room for improvement.
Back-ordered repair parts and recall notices that are
disregarded by consumers are the two main reasons that the
completion rates lag. It is not unusual for a dealer to wait 60
days or more for a back-ordered recall repair part. In some
instances, repair parts can be unavailable for over a year. I
don't know of any dealer who isn't eager to remedy a recall
vehicle and make a customer happy, but they need repair parts
to do that
Inaction by consumers after receiving a recall notice also
hinders completion rates. One idea NADA has suggested to NHTSA
at its April recall workshop was for NHTSA to launch a media
campaign targeted to those demographic groups that are less
likely to respond to recall notices. We ask the subcommittee to
consider that idea.
Improving NHTSA's recall database and lookup tool is
another way to boost the recall completion rate. The current
system was designed for single-vehicle lookups by consumers. It
was not designed for commercial use. Depending on its size, the
dealer can have dozens to thousands of used vehicles in its
inventory. This bill should include a provision directing NHTSA
to upgrade its recall database to allow dealerships to
automatically check on a daily basis which used vehicles in
their inventory are under open recall. A tool that is
searchable, automated, and can batch multiple requests is
critical to identifying open recall vehicles in a dealer's
inventory in getting them fixed.
We also support Section 203, which would provide
notification by state DMV of a recall at the time of
registration renewal. It is all about notification and
awareness, and we think that this is a good idea to help
increase the remedy rate.
Section 205 would extend the period for which cars could be
recalled from 10 to 15 years. With the average vehicle on the
road today at 11.5 years, this provision also makes sense.
In conclusion, Congress must ensure that any new recall
policy it enacts is data-driven. The most successful highway
safety policies such as enactment of primary safety belt laws
and anti-drunk driving measures were all based on hard data and
now are proven countermeasures. We commend the subcommittee for
its hard work and stand ready to work with you on strong safety
measures that will protect America's driving public.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Welch follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILSON
Mr. Michael Wilson. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much
for the opportunity to testify. I am Michael Wilson, CEO of the
Automotive Recyclers Association.
The Association is dedicated to the efficient removal and
reutilization of genuine original equipment automotive parts
and the proper recycling of inoperable motor vehicles. ARA
represents the interests of over 4,000 automotive recycling
facilities in the United States who each day sell over 500,000
recycled parts directly to consumers, mechanical shops,
collision repair shops and automobile dealers.
These quality, recycled original equipment parts are
designed by automakers and built to meet their requirements for
fit, finish, durability, reliability, and safety. These parts
are often reutilized in the repair and service of vehicles
throughout their lifespan, and these replacement parts continue
to operate as they were originally intended in terms of form,
function, performance, and safety.
I urge Congress to add language to the subcommittee's draft
legislation that would provide the automotive recycling
industry access to critical original equipment parts data on
all motor vehicles. The critical data includes part numbers,
names, and descriptions tied to each vehicle's specific vehicle
identification number.
The straightforward reason that this information is
necessary is because manufacturers and dealers in the
automotive industry speak a totally different parts language
than those in the auto recycling community. Automakers and
dealers utilize original equipment part numbers, while
automotive recyclers have historically utilized Hollander
Interchange part numbers.
The Hollander Interchange enables automotive recyclers and
enthusiasts to identify and find parts they need to keep their
vehicles running and in original condition. The Hollander
Interchange indexes millions of parts and their interchangeable
equivalent from other vehicles, for example, a specific part
that is in a Ford F-150 is also interchangeable with the same
part in a Ford Expedition, a Mercury Mountaineer, or a Lincoln
Navigator.
It is only through the utilization of both original
equipment part numbers and the Hollander Interchange part
numbers that automotive manufacturers and recyclers can come
together to enhance overall motor vehicle safety, help improve
recall remedy rates, and comply with the federal recall remedy
statute for used equipment enacted 15 years ago in the TREAD
Act.
First, I would like to address the challenge automotive
recyclers face in identifying automakers' non-remedied
defective parts in their current inventory. Regrettably, the
TREAD Act, MAP-21, and their respective rulemakings did not
compel the automakers to provide essential parts data, making
it functionally impossible for used replacement part
stakeholders to comply with the federal statute.
Automakers are fully aware that the lifecycle of their
parts can go beyond the initial utilization in a motor vehicle
from the factory. This recognition was underscored in August
2014, when General Motors contracted with a third-party
supplier to coordinate the purchase and return of certain used
parts, which are subject to a product safety ignition switch
recall from automotive recycling facilities.
In a third-party notice to recycling facilities, the
correspondence not only included the make, model, and year of
the vehicles subject to the recall but also detailed the
specific GM part and the ACDelco service part numbers, which
the notice stated, ``are provided so the manager can identify
the parts being recalled.'' The notice also included the
Hollander Interchange number for ignition switches. Clearly, GM
understands that specific part numbers are vital to correctly
and efficiently locate the affected parts.
In NHTSA's current SaferCar.gov site, individuals or
companies who sell a significant number of vehicles or parts do
not have the multiple VIN lookup capability to necessary
information and are severely limited by objections to allowing
electronic integration of important data to enhance safety.
Just as problematic is the data provided by the automakers
through safercar.gov is many times a recall narrative rather
than actual part numbers, names, or descriptions, making it all
but impossible to identify specific recalled parts
electronically.
It is essential that our recyclers be able to
electronically identify those parts associated with VINs which
have been recalled and not remedied before vehicles are
potentially purchased at auction or acquired from the general
public. If the automakers provide access to parts data, it will
allow the recycling community to comply with its obligations
under the TREAD Act, and can help protect our nation's drivers
from the manufacturers' defective parts.
While some automakers may concede to the need for providing
the original equipment data for their defective parts, it is
important to understand this is not enough. The number of
defective automotive parts in today's marketplace is increasing
at alarming rates. In fact, some 100 million vehicles have been
recalled since the beginning of 2014. These recall campaigns
create multiple challenges for my members who provide safe and
quality recycled original equipment parts to the marketplace.
Also consider the original equipment parts that automotive
recyclers sell today and are subject to a recall at some future
date. If automotive recyclers don't have access to all original
equipment parts data, there is no specific part number to track
it going forward if there is a subsequent recall on that part.
Most agree that the private sector has developed or has the
potential to develop highly effective solutions to the vehicle
and the part identification, along with the remedy-tracking
problem. However, these systems would only be as good as the
data the companies have access to and are able to provide to
the affected parties. Unfortunately, IIHS and other data
providers currently do not have access to part numbers,
descriptions, and other important data needed to track recalled
parts and to significantly increase recall remedy rates.
Automakers are accountable for the safety of all original
equipment parts throughout their lifecycle and should be
required to share whatever parts information is necessary to
identify and locate recalled defective parts within the
recycled original equipment parts population. The practice of
sharing original equipment part numbers with recyclers should
not be an anomaly. Rather, it should be a standard automotive
industry practice, especially in light of the new safety norm.
Consumer demand for a safe and vibrant replacement parts
market makes it imperative that Congress include language that
would require automakers to remove the barriers they have
constructed so that all parts data is available to the
professional automotive recycling industry.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Michael Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman, and thank all
of you for your testimony. We will move into the question-and-
answer portion of the hearing, and I will begin that by----
Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman may state his request.
Mr. Butterfield. Yes, I am preparing to chair a meeting in
just a few minutes with 45 Members. May I submit my questions
for the record and have the witnesses respond later in writing?
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman certainly understands there is a
lot of Members who are wanting to ask questions, but I would be
prepared to yield to the gentleman to go first for his
questions if you would like.
Mr. Butterfield. You are very kind, and I can talk fast.
Mr. Burgess. Proceed. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Butterfield. Ms. Claybrook----
Mr. Burgess. And I will hold off all the other Members.
Mr. Butterfield. You are very kind. Thank you.
Ms. Claybrook, thank you for coming. Ms. Claybrook, as you
know, I have worked closely with Lois Capps and Ms. Schakowsky
and others on rental car safety legislation. In fact, in May we
introduced 2189, the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental
Car Act of 2015. I am disappointed that the text of that bill
was not included in the base text of the safety title, but it
was included in the bill that the Senate is working on. Do you
share in my disappointment in any way that the text of 2189 was
not included as a part of the title?
Ms. Claybrook. I certainly do. And as you heard
Administrator Rosekind, he does, too. We believe that all cars
that have been subject to recall, whether new cars or used cars
or rental cars, should all be fixed immediately.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Why is enacting a federal
standard with regard to rental car safety so important?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, it is important because it causes
death and injury on the highway for unsuspecting owners or
renters, and that is the bottom line is safety on the highway.
Mr. Butterfield. And to the best of your knowledge, do the
vast majority of rental car companies support a federal rental
car safety standard?
Ms. Claybrook. That is my understanding: the vast majority
do. And the public does overwhelmingly.
Mr. Butterfield. OK. Is there anyone on the panel that
would dispute that?
[Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Butterfield. Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
and the Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America,
AAA, and the American Rental Car Association all support 2189,
and they have called on this committee to move the bill either
on its own or as part of a larger package. Do you agree or
disagree?
Ms. Claybrook. Oh, I completely agree. And warning is not
enough, by the way. The car has to be fixed. The vehicle has to
be fixed.
Mr. Butterfield. All right. And finally, for Mr. Welch,
thank you very much, Mr. Welch, for coming, and you certainly
know we have a Member named Peter Welch from Vermont.
Your association, Mr. Welch, believes that we should focus
more on fixing recalled rental cars instead of grounding them.
It seems to me that the rental companies have every incentive
to repair a grounded vehicle and get it back on the road as
soon as possible. And so I would think that a requirement to
ground an unrepaired vehicle would actually speed up the repair
rate. As you know, federal law already requires new recalled
cars to be grounded until they are fixed. Do your members
prefer to fix these new recalled cars quickly or simply have
them to sit on the lot?
Mr. Welch. Well, of course our members are the ones that
perform the vast majority of recall fixes and remedies across
the country.
With respect to the rental car bill, we are supportive of
the premise behind the bill that vehicles that are unsafe to
drive should not be put into the hands of the public. Our
issues with that bill is the definition of when is it unsafe to
drive a vehicle and differentiating between recalls that would
not render a vehicle unsafe to drive, as determined by either
NHTSA or the original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle.
And I think we could have lots of discussions and hope to have
discussions on drawing a clear, bright line on when a vehicle
is unsafe to drive to distinguish it, for instance, between
those types of recalls that would not affect the safety of
driving the vehicle.
We have a number of other issues. I can get into it if you
want, but in the interest of time, specific provisions on that
bill, for instance, it is overly broad because it paints all of
these vehicles with the same brush. We think it is unfair to
small businesses. Eighty percent of our members are small
businesses. It treats our members the same. If I have five
vehicles in a loaner fleet, for instance, I am subject to the
same penalties and fines that Hertz and Avis is. So there are a
number of issues.
Mr. Butterfield. Do you think that rental companies would
have the same incentive to repair?
Mr. Welch. Well, of course that raises another issue, and
that is the fight for parts. As I mentioned before, the only
thing that is holding us back from fixing any vehicle that
comes onto our lot is the availability of parts, and we have
commissioned some research on that. And the average delayed
part on trade-in vehicles, for instance, is 60 days. And we
have some concern that the rental car companies might get in a
tug-of-war with the manufacturers for the availability of parts
that may adversely affect our customers that are coming in to
get their vehicles repaired.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch.
Ms. Claybrook. Mr. Chairman, could I comment on one thing?
Mr. Butterfield. Yes?
Ms. Claybrook. Could I comment on one thing? It seems to me
that in terms of whether the car is safe to drive that the
manufacturer has already made that decision. When they do a
recall, they are saying this is a safety issue and this car
needs to be fixed. And there are very few cars that are unsafe
when they are not driven. So it seems to me that the
manufacturer has already made that decision, and it is not up
to somebody else to decide, NHTSA or anybody else to decide
whether or not it is safe to drive that.
Mr. Welch. If I could respond to that?
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
Mr. Welch. The manufacturers and NHTSA do in fact issue
stop-drive notices, and it is about 6 percent of the recalls
that they do stop-drive. And I understand that there could be a
dispute between whether it ought to be 8 percent or 10 percent
or 40 percent or whatever. Again, we are the monkey in the
middle. The car dealers, we are there looking for parts to fix
the cars. But there is a big difference between, for instance,
a mislabel--and I don't want to be trite in any way, shape, or
form, characterize any violation of a statute subject a vehicle
to recall but there----
Ms. Claybrook. When would you fix it? So you don't want to
fix it today because it is OK to drive it with a bad label.
When are you going to fix it? Are you going to fix it----
Mr. Butterfield. Well, maybe some of the other Members
will----
Mr. Welch. As soon as the part is available, it will get
fixed so they----
Mr. Butterfield. The chairman was so kind----
Mr. Burgess. And I will reclaim----
Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. To yield to me and I----
Mr. Burgess. I will reclaim the time. The dais will ask the
questions.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very
much.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. And good luck with
your meeting.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. So
that was an interesting exchange.
Let me just ask Mr. Bainwol about this ISAC, the gathering
of data. What is the mechanism for disseminating information
back then to your members or anyone else involved?
Mr. Bainwol. The ISAC, again, which will be stood up in a
matter of weeks--I think today an announcement went out with
the board of directors so it is very much in process. The board
is comprised of auto companies, so this is really a form for
members, OEMs, to share information about risk and
countermeasures. And so the mechanism is the ISAC itself, and
that is precisely why it has been established.
We are augmenting the ISAC--which, by definition, deals
with problems after they have been manifest--with the best
practices to preempt the possibility of problems. So this is a
comprehensive approach. We are going to be working, obviously,
with NHTSA using guideposts as we develop these best practices,
including NIST, but the ISAC itself is comprised of the OEMs,
and down the road, we will broaden out to include suppliers.
Mr. Burgess. And how do you then get the word out? Is it
certified mail, e-mail, carrier pigeon? What are you doing?
Mr. Bainwol. So the process is being established but they
are talking to each other. The OEM community is a relatively
small one and----
Mr. Burgess. So you don't see that as being an obstacle or
a barrier?
Mr. Bainwol. The communications when events happen, I
think, will be very quick, accelerated, and that will not be a
problem.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. Mr. Welch, if I can ask you a
question because, of course, this committee and another
subcommittee has been very involved on the airbag recall, and
of course in the Fort Worth-Dallas area. The backorder, you
brought up the issue of the backorder of the recalled repair
parts. And what has been the experience with your member
dealers as far as being able to get the parts, specifically the
airbags, for replacement when someone brings their vehicle in
to have it fixed?
Mr. Welch. Well, that has been a particularly troublesome
recall, as you know. There are some 24 million vehicles that
are involved in that, and in order to produce sophisticated
airbags in sufficient numbers to replace 24 million of them are
going to take time. In fact, the backorders on those, depending
on the make, the model, what factory they are coming from,
availability, could well be over a year.
And the dilemma that we face day in and day out because of
the publicity that this recall has received, we have to deal
with our consumers, your constituents that come in, and we
don't have the replacement part. And the dilemma is that they
don't affect all of the vehicles the same depending on what the
climate is. There is a humidity issue with them, and I think
our partners the manufacturers are doing as good a job as they
can in trying to triage the availability of those parts and get
them to the regions of the country where they would have the
largest impact with respect to it.
But we are just going to have to wait through that and do
the best that we can with the availability. We have got
databases with people waiting, priority issues, and some of
them want us to disengage the airbag, which creates a whole
other dilemma, and we don't think that is a good idea. And then
there is the debate between the risk of the occupant having an
airbag since not all of them have the defect in them. So it is
a very complex issue, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Burgess. And, of course, in the hearings that we have
held on this, this is all made more difficult because no one
knows what the central defect is, and the replacement parts
that you are putting in the cars that do come in that are
subject to the recall and do require a replacement part, no
complete assurance that the replacement part is actually
compliant since we don't know what the defect was in the first
place.
You brought up getting the information out to targeted
demographics, and that is something that has been the subject
of a lot of discussion in this subcommittee as well, because
typically, this is the third or fourth owner of a vehicle. I
know in the market in the Dallas paper, one of the automotive
manufacturers actually took out full-page ads in the paper, if
you have one of our cars that is of this vintage, call the
number or bring it in or whatever their requirement was.
But they said it is very, very difficult to get the
information out to, again, that third or fourth owner who may
not be someone who reads the newspaper regularly that is maybe
difficult to reach that individual. So is that one of the
things that your association is working on as well? How do we
get people in?
Mr. Welch. Well, any way that we can contact our customer
base. Unfortunately, as the vehicles get older in age, they
don't continue to bring them to the franchise dealer for their
ordinary maintenance.
I might add that the completion rate, the remedy rate for
vehicles that are 5 years old or newer is actually 85 percent,
and one of the primary reasons for that is those vehicles are
still coming in for warranty work. And trust me, any time a
vehicle comes into our service department, we are scanning the
VIN, we are running it if we have access to the database, and
we are snagging it there and repairing them at our service
bays.
Mr. Burgess. And my time is expired. I yield to the
gentlelady from Illinois 5 minutes for questions, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I wanted to ask a yes or no question, a couple of them, for
Mr. Bainwol. Did the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ask
the committee for the provision in the bill that would give
automakers a break from health-based carbon emissions
requirements in exchange for adding safety features?
Mr. Bainwol. We did not request it per se but we had a
conversation about the value of----
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes or no, do you support that provision?
Yes or no?
Mr. Bainwol. We certainly support the provision, sure.
Ms. Schakowsky. You do?
Mr. Bainwol. Sure.
Ms. Schakowsky. And, Mr. Bozzella, I am asking the same
question of the association of Global Automakers. Did you ask
the committee for that provision?
Mr. Bozzella. We did not.
Ms. Schakowsky. Do you support it?
Mr. Bozzella. The provision to incentivize lifesaving
technologies we think is a very important conversation to have.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I want all consumers to understand
that manufacturers of automobiles support a provision that
would actually increase pollution in exchange for providing--I
am not asking now; I am talking--to improve safety of the
automobiles. I think it is outrageous. Consumers like myself
who now have a hybrid are seeking that. I would imagine that
auto dealers would find the consumers are coming in and wanting
more fuel-efficient cars. And to add this as an incentive to
get safety often for safety features that are readily available
is completely outrageous.
I want to thank you, Mr. Dotson, for your testimony on this
matter, and I want to move on to something else.
Mr. Bainwol. May we comment on that?
Ms. Schakowsky. Briefly.
Mr. Bainwol. OK. Well, I will try to be brief.
Ms. Schakowsky. No, you will be brief.
Mr. Bainwol. Well----
Ms. Schakowsky. It is my time. Go ahead.
Mr. Bainwol. It is your time. So the challenge here is I
think to some extent we are talking past each other. You define
safety as a matter of defect policy and we define safety as a
totality of the problem. So when you look at the issue, and
this chart I think makes it pretty clear, 94 percent of the
challenge when it comes to death if not more, if not close to
99 percent, is a function of driver error. The magic of this
technology is that it will address the totality of the problem.
Ms. Schakowsky. What are you talking about? We are talking
about incentives that increase auto pollution----
Mr. Bainwol. We are----
Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. In exchange for getting those
safety----
Mr. Bainwol. We are talking about maximizing and
accelerating the deployment of lifesaving technologies.
Ms. Schakowsky. Exactly. And doing it in a way that
increases auto emissions.
Mr. Bainwol. In a----
Ms. Schakowsky. I am sorry. I want to move on. It is my
time.
This is for Ms. Claybrook. Over the last several years, we
have seen multiple scandals involving auto manufacturers and
major safety defects that were internally reported but allowed
to endanger people for years before the company did anything
about this. NHTSA's ability to collect safety-related
information from carmakers is critical to catching and fixing
those problems. The draft we are looking at today asked NHTSA
to conduct eight new studies and reports without providing any
additional funding. Meanwhile, it does almost nothing to
improve the communication of vital safety information from
manufacturers to the agencies. My legislation, the Vehicle
Safety Improvement Act, would facilitate communications.
Let me ask you. As former NHTSA administrator, do you
believe that more information from auto manufacturers would
allow the agency to be more effective in its safety mission?
Ms. Claybrook. Absolutely, I believe more information is
necessary. The early warning system that was created by the
2000 law for the TREAD Act did not give a lot of specificity
about what the manufacturers had to report. They often report
inconsistent information, it is very difficult to understand,
and they fail to report information. Many have been fined for
that recently. So that law needs to be upgraded, and your bill
does a good job of helping to do that.
I also think there need to be criminal penalties when the
manufacturers fail to give that kind of information knowingly
and willfully because otherwise they are not going to stop
doing it.
Ms. Schakowsky. And do you think the penalties currently
are adequate?
Ms. Claybrook. No. First of all, if you look at what the
U.S. Attorney fined Toyota, 1.2 billion; and General Motors,
900 million; and NHTSA's maximum penalty is 35 million. So it
is clear that that number has to be drastically increased or
there has to be no maximum. But there also need to be criminal
penalties because when a manufacturer knows that they might go
to jail, they are going to behave differently and they are
going to pay more attention to what is going on.
When the counsel of General Motors said that he didn't even
know about settlements of lawsuits involving the ignition
switch and that they were covering up information from those
lawsuits, that was just incomprehensible. And so I think that
there needs to be much stronger penalty provisions.
Ms. Schakowsky. I appreciate that. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky 5 minutes
for your questions, please.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for having this meeting.
I appreciate the panel for being here. And I apologize. There
is another subcommittee of this committee going on, so I was in
the other one during your opening remarks. If some of my
questions repeat those, then I apologize. I will give you a
chance to elaborate if you have already addressed some of
these.
This is for Mr. Bainwol and then Mr. Bozzella. Have NHTSA
and the auto industry had discussions on how best to apply the
NIST cybersecurity risk management framework to the development
of automobile security?
Mr. Bainwol. Not directly the question of NIST but we have
had discussions with the administrator about best practices. We
met with him in September, and it was his view that the pace of
innovation is so rapid that it would be wise for us to move
forward with the best practices, that we would be, in his
words, more nimble. And as a result of that conversation, as a
result of discussions with members of this committee, we made
the decision to go forward with the best practices. And NIST
will be part of the framework that we evaluate as we move
forward.
Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Bozzella?
Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I will just simply build on Mr.
Bainwol's comment by simply saying the NIST framework is going
to be part of obviously our discussion as an industry. And I
think it is important to recognize that, though we have had
ongoing conversations with NHTSA, that we can't afford to wait.
It is really important that we make sure that our customers
have the confidence and the trust in these products so that
they can take advantage of the benefits, the lifesaving
benefits of these technologies. And so we have moved forward.
We are going to continue to consult not only within the
industry but with a broad number of stakeholders, and certainly
the NIST framework will be part of those discussions.
Mr. Guthrie. And then I have another question for you, too.
How are car companies currently dealing with the security of
aftermarket or third-party devices that are typically being
plugged into the vehicle through the OBD-II port?
Mr. Bozzella. This is a really important question. As you
know, Congressman, the industry has voluntarily adopted a set
of privacy principles that treat sensitive personally
identifiable information really as sacrosanct. We care deeply
about making sure that our customers know that we are treating
geolocation data--where the vehicle has been or other personal
data, maybe biometric data if the car is able to collect that
type of data, or driver behavior data--differently than other
kinds of data. And we think it is very important that we
continue to work with a broad set of stakeholders to understand
the implications of what might happen if an aftermarket device
is plugged into the OBD port.
And we think also consumer education is important in this
area. It is a very important question to understand. Is the
manufacturer of that device, do they have the same types of
privacy policies? How they established the same cyber best
practices that the automakers have or are doing? And so that
actual entrance into the vehicle sort of represents a very
important question about how we think about cybersecurity.
Mr. Bainwol. And I simply add that, by way of example, I
have a Progressive device. It is actually an Allstate device
that I plug in for insurance purposes. That doesn't run, in
terms of the privacy question, through the manufacturer. That
is a relationship with the insurance company. And I derive a
value from that because I derive cheaper insurance and an
ability to understand better the driving behavior of my
children, which is something we all, I think, aspire to.
So this does get complicated, and the point of the example
is whether it is insurance or whether it is Google or Apple or
carriers, there are relationships here that now really compel
us to work with suppliers and other folks that we have not
traditionally worked with. And so on privacy and on cyber, we
are going to have to reach out, and we have started that
process.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you have a comment, Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Ann Wilson. Congressman, I represent also aftermarket
manufacturers, and we have been working with vehicle
manufacturers to create an ISO standard----
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Ms. Ann Wilson [continuing]. So that you can do exactly
that, take a look at aftermarket products and make sure that
when they are plugged into the OBD port, they meet some kind of
standards that are known throughout the industry.
Mr. Guthrie. All right. Thank you. And thank you. We have
talked on fuel-efficient standards and safety, and I want a
fuel-efficient car that is safe. I think all of us want that,
but they are not unrelated because if you are going to go for
more fuel efficiency--I know this area pretty well--automotive
companies will try to take weight out of the car and try to
keep it safe. I mean that is how you get more fuel efficient.
So they are interrelated.
So if you are going to incentivize--and automotive
companies, they are spending an enormous amount of money trying
to get to the new CAF AE1E standards. An enormous amount of
investments come from automotive companies, which does add to
the expense of the car. And the security issues and safety
issues are expensive. So if you can give some relief in one
area to get safety and security first, I think that is
important. And then you move to more fuel-efficient cars. I
think that is the number one priority is safety. And they are
interdependent. They are not unrelated to each other.
Mr. Bainwol. In my testimony, Congressman, I use the phrase
``safety equals green.'' This is a change paradigm. When these
technologies like accident-avoidance technologies yield better
safety outcomes, the yield is more fuel-efficient cars, better
emissions records, and certainly a more productive economy.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts 5
minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panelists and the witnesses here for their testimony.
I wanted to touch on Section 202 of the draft bill, which
requires NHTSA to draft recall notices in coordination with
auto manufacturers before making recalls public. And recall
notices would not be published until all vehicle identification
numbers for affected vehicles are made available to NHTSA by
the auto manufacturer. I believe the first panel touched on
this a little bit as well.
So, Ms. Claybrook, if you can, in some of the recent major
recalls we have heard concerns that the recalls were made
public before any information about whether a specific vehicle
was included in the recall, which led to some customer
confusion. At the same time, you have noted in your testimony
that a delayed notice can actually have deadly consequences.
So I just wanted to get you to kind of expand on that
dichotomy if you could. Why is prompt notice so crucial in your
mind, and how would you navigate through those tensions?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all, I think that at the
bottom line the public, the consumers, the people who are
driving these cars, they are entitled to know that there is a
problem with the vehicle. And they can maybe do something on
their own to avoid the problem while they are waiting for the
recall to occur. So any delay in announcing that recall I think
is disadvantageous, and I would actually urge the administrator
of NHTSA, as I did when I was administrator, to put out a
consumer alert and allow the public to be informed about what
is going on.
This provision in this bill suggests that they could not do
that, that the administrator would be limited in the way that
they could communicate to the public and then have to wait for
the manufacturer to say OK. I think that that is completely
back-assward----
Mr. Kennedy. I got what you meant.
Ms. Claybrook. Backwards. And so the administrator's hands
should not be tied that way.
Mr. Kennedy. My words not his, but I believe Dr. Rosekind
this morning echoed those statements about if the government
was in fact sitting on the fact that they knew there was a
problem yet was not time divulging that information to
consumers and an accident were to take place, that is not a
position that I think any administrator would want to be in.
So instead of delaying notice of recalls to consumers, the
Vehicle Safety Improvement Act would give NHTSA imminent hazard
authority to expedite a recall when the agency determines that
a defect or noncompliance, as I understand it, substantially
increases the likelihood of serious injury or death if not
remedied immediately.
So, Ms. Claybrook, how do you think this imminent-hazard
authority would be beneficial to NHTSA in reducing deaths and
injuries resulting from those crashes?
Ms. Claybrook. Oh, absolutely, because there are occasions
where the car is so hazardous that that recall ought to be
handled immediately.
And I would say also that this provision that is in the
bill was in an earlier bill about 15 years ago, and consumers
were extremely upset about it, and it was taken out of the bill
because a committee came to realize that it was really totally
unfair, that the administrator would not be able to inform the
public.
Mr. Kennedy. VSIA would also eliminate, as my
understanding, regional recalls, an issue that the majority's
draft bill does not address. Americans are much more mobile
than they have ever been in the past, and just because a
vehicle is registered in a particular region does not mean that
the vehicle will only be driven in that region. Under VSIA, all
recalls would be carried out on a national basis. It would also
allow NHTSA to prioritize certain parts of the country when the
quantity of replacement parts is limited.
So, Ms. Claybrook, once again, could you explain how the
elimination of the regional recall aspect would improve safety?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all, regional recalls are not
in the statute. It is completely an informal thing that the
manufacturers about 25, 30 years ago came to the agency and
say, well, we would just like to do a regional recall on this
for these reasons. And the agency said all right. And then it
became so standard operating procedure because it is much
cheaper for the manufacturers only to recall a small number of
vehicles rather than nationwide.
Of course, vehicles don't stay stationary. That is the
silly thing about the whole regional recall because they go all
over the country. And if your car has only been fixed because
you bought it and lived with Florida for a while and then you
moved to Minnesota, it just doesn't make any sense.
So I think that the agency could prioritize. I think they
have the discretion under the law to prioritize and say if you
are doing the recall and it is more likely to happen in a
particular area because of the weather, then we would prefer
that you do it that way. I am sure the manufacturers would
agree.
Mr. Kennedy. And just briefly--unfortunately, I have just a
few seconds left--but in your experience, would eliminating
those regional recalls, as you touched on, but allowing NHTSA
to prioritize the allocation of replacement parts by region
when necessary--essentially, the prioritization you just spoke
about--have an effect on NHTSA's ability to execute a recall?
Ms. Claybrook. No. No, it absolutely would not. And I think
that the experience that we have with the misbehavior of
manufacturers over the last 5 years, as we have seen, in
covering up recalls, delaying them, not doing them for years
and years, and all the rest means that NHTSA has to take a
stronger role and they should be the decision-makers on this,
not the manufacturers.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are to Mr. Dotson. Section 502 of the
discussion draft would amend the Clean Air Act by interfering
with the national program that EPA and NHTSA have developed to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for
passenger cars and trucks. Mr. Dotson, can you briefly explain
this national program and what are its goals?
Mr. Dotson. Certainly. The purpose of the program is
essentially to control carbon pollution from light-duty
vehicles, and the program is remarkably successful. It will
essentially have the effect of doubling fuel economy or
reducing the emissions of cars and trucks by half, reducing
emissions by half by 2025.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So why is it so important to
establish standards for greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles,
and how will changing these commonsense requirements impact our
ability to avoid or prevent the worst impacts of climate
change?
Mr. Dotson. Well, it is now I think a consensus amongst
scientific community, business, and even the faith community
that climate change is a very serious threat. Last year, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that they have
high confidence that unmitigated warming will be high to very
high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts
globally, so things like food shortages----
Mr. Pallone. You don't have to talk about climate change.
You don't have to convince me, and you are not going to
convince my colleagues on the other side. Why is it important
to establish these standards for gas emissions for vehicles?
Mr. Dotson. Well, the standards are very important, but
they are important because they provide the industry clear
direction on where they need to go over time.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Dotson. And the erosion that occurs in this bill, while
it might sound small, is actually very significant. If you were
to award a 3-gram credit for cars that have in-dash GPS or
emergency auto braking, in the first year--last year, there
were 16.5 million cars sold in the United States. You assume
those cars drive 13,000 miles a year or so. You are talking
about over 700,000 tons of additional pollution in year 1.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Dotson. In year 2, it is over a million, in year 3 it
is over 2 million tons.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Now, there are flexibilities built
into the national program such as the ability to generate
credits for over-compliance with the standards, that is,
credits that can be banked or traded. And there are also air-
conditioning improvement credits and other types of credits
known as off-cycle credits. Can you explain briefly what are
the off-cycle credits?
Mr. Dotson. Certainly. Off-cycle credits essentially allow
the manufacturers to take credit for efficiencies they gain
that are unrelated to the power train of the vehicle. So, for
example, if an auto manufacturer uses high-efficiency lighting
or high-efficiency air-conditioning, they may be able to
recognize those benefits in off-cycle credits.
The EPA and the Department of Transportation looked at this
issue with regard to congestion mitigation or crash avoidance,
and they found that there is ``no consistent established
methods or supporting data to determine the appropriate level
of the credit.'' And that is really the problem with awarding
credits for these kinds of technologies.
Mr. Pallone. But in other words, these credits such as air-
conditioning that don't readily appear to contribute to
improved vehicle mileage or reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
they must have had a positive effect, right?
Mr. Dotson. And those effects are demonstrated through data
to the agencies. So essentially, if you are using very high-
efficiency lighting, you will need less electricity. Your car
will have to generate less electricity to power those
headlights. And so it is a way of recognizing that even though
it might not show up in the emissions testing, which is----
Mr. Pallone. OK. But the difference, in contrast, is that
Section 502 of this bill would expand the credits list to
include the use of advanced automotive technologies, for
example, adaptive brake-assist technology, connected-vehicle
technology. I mean, automakers have argued that crash-avoidance
technology will result in fewer crashes and therefore less
traffic congestion, but less congestion, they argue, would
result in less emissions and less fuel use? Is there any way to
directly connect fuel savings for lower emissions to individual
vehicles? I am just trying to make the contrast between, you
know, the things that you are doing now versus what Section 502
does. It doesn't seem to me that there is any real connection
if you will.
Mr. Dotson. You put your finger on exactly the issue, that
there could be, there may be diffuse benefits to using these
technologies and reducing emissions, but there also might not
be. For example, there is an American car which is on the
market today, and as an option, you can buy lane-departure
warning technology. Well, the Highway Loss Data Institute
looked at that technology and they compared claims against that
car that either have the technology or don't, and what they
found was there is no reduced claims on cars that have that
technology. Therefore, it is not preventing accidents.
Therefore, it is not reducing emissions. And so that is one
concrete example where this bill would give credits to that car
even though we have data to help us understand that there are
not emissions benefits to it.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, 5
minutes for questions, please.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all our
witnesses for your testimony today.
Federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars
subject to recall, but there is no similar law to stop rental
car companies from renting or selling dangerous recalled cars
that have not been fixed. Since the Houck sisters' death near
my district in 2004, the major rental companies signed onto a
voluntary pledge to not rent out recalled vehicles. While this
was a good step forward, these standards are still not enough.
Just last year, after the pledge was in place, Jewel Brangman
was killed in her rental car when an unrepaired Takata airbag
exploded.
As we heard from NHTSA on the first panel, a change in
federal law is needed, and that is why I have introduced H.R.
2198 with my colleagues Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Walter Jones, Mr.
Butterfield to prohibit the rental of recalled vehicles. I am
disappointed our bill was excluded from the draft we are
considering today despite its broad support from the rental
industry and consumer groups and that it has already passed the
Senate.
I also remain baffled that the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and National Automobile Dealers Association
actively oppose H.R. 2198 despite years of ongoing discussions
and efforts to find a compromise. For example, the alliance
sites a concern about potential loss of use and other liability
impacts as a reason for its opposition.
To address this concern, we added a savings clause to the
bill explicitly stating that nothing in the bill will impact
manufacturers' liability or other contractual obligations.
Because of this change, General Motors, one of the alliance's
biggest members, now supports H.R. 2198. Honda has also
expressed its support for the bill.
Mr. Bainwol--and I would like a yes or no answer on this if
you would--does the alliance still oppose H.R. 2198 despite
General Motors' support for the bill? Yes or no?
Mr. Bainwol. The alliance does not have consensus.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. So you can't say yes or no then
because there is no consensus?
Mr. Bainwol. We don't have consensus.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Mr. Welch, your organization has expressed concerns about
the impacts H.R. 2198 would have on dealers with small rental
or loaner car operation. My question to you: when consumers
bring their recalled cars to a dealer for repairs and they need
a loaner car, do you think dealers should be able to loan them
vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls? And again, I ask you
for a yes or no answer.
Mr. Welch. If the vehicle has been deemed to be unsafe to
drive either by the OEMs or by NHTSA, we would not put one of
those cars in the hands of the consumer.
Mrs. Capps. So that is a no? You do not think dealers
should be able to loan vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls?
Mr. Welch. No, I said if they were unsafe to drive we
wouldn't put them out there. If it involves----
Mrs. Capps. You would not loan them, then, as loaner cars?
Mr. Welch. If it was unsafe to drive. If it had a door jamb
sticker or a misprinted number----
Mrs. Capps. OK. That is not quite what my question is, but
I just go back to the first panel in which NHTSA said that
every recall is a safety issue. There are no frivolous recalls.
It is a simple question. The vast majority of rental companies
have agreed to voluntarily stop renting rental cars. Why can't
the dealers do the same?
Mr. Welch. Well, again, I would like to draw a distinction
between a recalled vehicle for a noncompliance that may not
make it unsafe to drive.
Mrs. Capps. May I ask you for a follow-up then? Who is
going to determine that?
Mr. Welch. Well, we rely on NHTSA and the OEMs to make that
determination.
Mrs. Capps. OK. NHTSA has said that every recall is a
safety issue, that they don't put recalls out unless it is a
safety issue.
Mr. Welch. Well, NHTSA has the authority to issue stop-
drives or make the manufacturers issue stop-drives, and if they
believe that a vehicle is unsafe to drive or the manufacturer
does it, they can issue that notice and we would certainly
honor it, but that doesn't apply to all vehicles that are
subject to recalls.
Mrs. Capps. I didn't get an answer but my time is out.
Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
I do just want to offer the observation, Ms. Schakowsky
said that she drove a hybrid vehicle. I want you to know your
chairman drives a hybrid also, but I have no problem at all if
you want to make future hybrid vehicles safer. If you want to
warn me as I depart a lane that there is a car, motorcycle,
tricycle in the other lane, I would like to know that
information, and I will give up a couple of carbon credits to
be able to have that available in the next version of the car
that I buy.
Mrs. Capps. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, may I add an
addendum, not a question, but I would like to enter into the
record some letters----
Mr. Burgess. Does the gentlelady have a unanimous consent
request?
Mrs. Capps. Yes, please.
Mr. Burgess. You are recognized for your unanimous consent
request.
Mrs. Capps. OK. I wanted to enter into the record a letter
from Raechel and Jackie's mother, Cally Houck, urging passage
of H.R. 2198, two letters from General Motors indicating the
company's support for H.R. 2198, and also a letter on behalf of
my colleague who needed to leave, Ms. Schakowsky.
Mr. Burgess. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. Seeing that there are no further Members
wishing to ask questions, I would like to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today.
Before we conclude, I would like to include the following
documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent:
a written statement by the American Car Rental Association, a
letter from the Auto Care Association, a letter from the
American Chemistry Council, a letter from the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a report from the
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, \1\ a statement
from the Environmental Protection Agency.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is also
available athttp://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if17/20151021/104070/
hhrg-114-if17-20151021-sd006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record. I ask the witnesses to submit their responses
within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. Without
objection, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
Ms. Claybrook. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask that I make a
correction in my testimony, unanimous consent to do that?
Mr. Burgess. Yes, I would be happy to hear the correction
of the testimony.
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burgess. Oh, you are not going to say it today?
Ms. Claybrook. No, I won't bother you now. I will just
submit it.
Mr. Burgess. All right. We are left wondering about the
correction.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]