    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD: THE STATE OF
                              NHTSA AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 June 26, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-29

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-378 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
        Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
               Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

                           GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
                                     Chairman
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Vice Chairman   JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee           Ranking Member
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            DARREN SOTO, Florida
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  KEVIN MULLIN, California
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey      ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Russ Fulcher, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Idaho, opening statement.......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Kevin Mullin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      California, opening statement..................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Michigan, opening statement.................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    19

                                   Witnesses

    John Bozzella, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance
      for Automotive Innovation......................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   157
    David Harkey, Ph.D., President, Insurance Institute for Highway
      Safety.........................................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   163
    Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety    43
        Prepared statement \1\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   164
    Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
      Association....................................................    44
        Prepared statement \2\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   167

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................    80
    Statement of Gina Oliver, Senior Director, Durable Markets
      Advocacy Team, Plastic Division, American Chemistry Council,
      June 26, 2025..................................................    81
    Statement of Richard J. Ward III, Executive Director, American
      Vehicle Owners Alliance, June 26, 2025.........................    85
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from Maria Weston Kuhn, President, Drive
      Action Fund, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky...............    88

    ----------

    \1\ Ms. Chase's statement has been retained in committee files and is
    available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20250626/118433/
    HMTG-119-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20250626.pdf.
    \2\ Mr. Farrah's statement has been retained in committee files and is
    available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20250626/118433/
    HMTG-119-IF17-Wstate-FarrahJ-20250626.pdf.
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from John Bozzella, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, to David
      Hines, Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National
      Highway Traffic Safety Administration..........................    90
    Letter of June 26, 2025, Thomas M. Kowalick, Chair, Institute of
      Electrical and Electronics Engineers, to Mr. Guthrie, et al....    92
    Statement of MEMA, the Vehicle Suppliers Association, June 26,
      2025...........................................................   108
    Letter from Jay Beeber, Executive Director-Policy, National
      Motorists Association, to subcommittee members.................   112
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from Mike Spagnola, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, Specialty Equipment Market Association, to
      Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky...............................   119
    Letter of March 5, 2025, from Alabama Tire Dealers Association,
      et al., to Members of Congress.................................   123
    Letter of June 24, 2025, from the National Consumers League to
      Mr. Guthrie, et al.............................................   125
    Article of January 30, 2025, ``Auto experts doubt Duffy's CAFE
      standards review will lower prices,'' by Chris Marquette and
      Alex Guillen, E&E News by Politico.............................   130
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from Stephanie Manning, Chief Government
      Affairs Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, to Mr.
      Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky...................................   132
    Statement of the League of American Bicyclists, June 26, 2025....   135
    Statement of the National Safety Council, June 26, 2025..........   143
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from John Samuelson, International
      President, Transport Workers Union of America, to Mr. Bilirakis
      and Ms. Schakowsky.............................................   147
    Letter of June 25, 2025, from Alyssa Tsuchiya, Director of Policy
      and Government Affairs, Clean Transportation Program, Union of
      Concerned Scientists, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky......   152

       LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD: THE STATE OF NHTSA ANDMOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2025

                      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
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Russ Fulcher (vice chairman of the subcommittee)
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Fulcher, Harshbarger,
    Obernolte, Fry, Kean, Goldman, Guthrie (ex officio), Schakowsky
    (subcommittee ranking member), Castor, Soto, Trahan, Mullin,
    Clarke, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, Schrier, and Pallone (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Representatives Latta and Dunn.
        Staff present: Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney
    Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Megan Jackson, Staff
    Director; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology;
    Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
    Director; Alex Khlopin, Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
    Trade; Giulia Leganski, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing,
    and Trade; Sarah Meier, Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel
    Miller, Chief Counsel; Evangelos Razis, Professional Staff
    Member; Jackson Rudden, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member
    Services/Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte, Communications
    Director; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Waverly
    Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
    Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Lisa Hone, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; La'Zale
    Johnson, Minority Intern; Megan Kanne, Professional Staff
    Member; Phoebe Rouge, Minority FTC Detailee; Destiny Sheppard,
    Minority Intern; and Maxwell Stern, Minority Intern.
        Mr. Fulcher. The subcommittee will come to order.
        The chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUSS FULCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

        Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us
    today--today's educational hearing on motor vehicle safety and
    the state of the automotive industry. And I look forward to a
    robust and informative discussion that will help Congress, and
    specifically this subcommittee, gain a clearer understanding of
    motor vehicle safety issues and its regulator, the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA.
        Automobile safety has been a longstanding topic of this
    subcommittee, and we play a crucial role in ensuring the
    vehicles on our roadways are safe for families, workers, and
    the traveling public. Automobiles are deeply woven into the
    fabric of American life. From commuting to work, to picking up
    kids at school, to taking a cross-country road trip,
    automobiles are both a cultural icon and a pillar of the
    American Dream. That is why today's hearing marks the beginning
    of a bipartisan, Member-driven, and stakeholder-informed
    process to develop a motor vehicle safety title as part of
    Congress' broader efforts to reauthorize our surface
    transportation programs.
        As part of this, the subcommittee is spearheading a
    bipartisan process to solicit stakeholder input to inform a
    motor vehicle safety title. Further, myself and Chairman
    Bilirakis will seek priorities from our committee members to
    ensure our product reflects the priorities of our diverse
    membership.
        Our primary objective will be to find solutions to address
    the tragic reality that nearly 40,000 Americans die annually
    from motor vehicle crashes, a staggering and tragic statistic.
    These crashes also lead to hundreds of billions in economic
    losses and cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
        NHTSA plays a central role in addressing this pressure
    issue through its education programs, regulatory work, and
    enforcement efforts. Congress must ensure that the agency is
    equipped and needed to fulfill its mission and save lives.
        Second, we must continue to recognize the economic
    importance of the automotive sector. This industry is America's
    largest manufacturing base, supporting tens of millions of jobs
    across the country and serving as a major driver of exports. As
    global competitors, especially China, seek to dominate the
    future of automotive innovation, Congress must examine how our
    regulatory structure can foster rather than hinder American
    leadership. This includes looking at ways to modernize and
    streamline regulations while maintaining our strong safety
    standards.
        Third, we must embrace the future of mobility. The
    emergence of automated vehicle technology presents a
    generational opportunity to prevent crashes, restore
    independence to millions of elderly and disabled Americans, and
    bolster economic growth. Congress must use this opportunity to
    advance a robust regulatory framework for autonomous vehicle
    technology.
        To achieve these goals, I look forward to working in a
    bipartisan manner with Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pallone.
    Together, we can craft smart, balanced policy solutions that
    save lives, strengthen American competitiveness, and shape the
    future of transportation for the better.
        Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today, and
    I look forward to your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fulcher follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fulcher. With that, the chairman recognizes the ranking
    member, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
        I want to congratulate and thank Cathy Chase, who is with--
    what is it--Advocates--it has got a longer name than that,
    except that it is advocates for safety.
        And I want to say that we were able to pass a number of
    pieces of legislation, some that we will talk about later and
    some that we need to push forward on. But I do just want to say
    that it is true that about 70,000 people have died on the
    highway, and we have to do better than that. These are numbers
    that are going up, not down. And so we have to focus on what
    are the things that are going to save more people on the
    highway.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. So I am happy right now to call on Mr.
    Mullin to talk about highway safety and focus on his community.
    It is yours.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN MULLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the witnesses for being here
    today.
        Recent transformative developments in vehicle technology
    have been exciting to see, and they speak to the need for
    congressional action. One topic of our hearing today will be
    autonomous vehicles. As someone who represents most of the San
    Francisco peninsula, which has been the epicenter of autonomous
    vehicle development, I have seen firsthand how rapidly this
    technology is advancing.
        While other areas of the country are beginning to take
    note, Waymos have been cruising through my district for years
    now. It has truly been remarkable to see and experience this
    technology firsthand. I see its potential for transforming
    traffic safety and eventually leading to a rapid decline in
    injuries and fatalities. And I believe as it develops we have a
    responsibility to make sure it is safe and not causing
    unintended consequences. This is why my colleagues and I have
    been asking NHTSA to collect more information about AVs for
    years. But the agency has declined to do so, despite the fact
    that more and more AVs are driving on our roads.
        And this is not a partisan issue. NHTSA could have done
    more under the previous administration. And now under the Trump
    administration, I am even more concerned about the agency's
    recent steps to reduce reporting requirements and cut staffing.
        I look forward to speaking with our witnesses later today
    about why we need to be doing more and not less.
        Another issue of safety that this committee has looked at
    for years is distracted driving, which in 2023 was responsible
    for more than 3,000 traffic deaths in the U.S. One technology
    that may pose new risk is the replacement of traditional
    tactile controls with dashboard touch screens, among other
    developments. Other countries are already exploring whether
    these new technologies contribute to distracted driving, and I
    believe we should be too.
        That is why I recently introduced the Driver Technology and
    Pedestrian Safety Act to study how the driver experience,
    including the use of touch screens, affect driver attention and
    therefore pedestrian safety.
        I want to thank Ms. Cathy Chase and Advocates for Highway
    and Auto Safety here today for their input and strong support
    of that bill. I look forward to discussing all of these issues
    in today's hearing.
        And with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mullin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to the ranking member.
        The chairman recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
    Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Thank you, Vice Chairman Fulcher. Thank you for conducting
    this hearing today. And I want to say good morning and thanks
    to all of our witnesses for being here. We appreciate you being
    here.
        This hearing provides an opportunity--an important
    opportunity for this committee to better understand the current
    state of vehicle safety, emerging trends, and the critical role
    of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA.
        The Committee on Energy and Commerce has long played a
    leading role in shaping automotive policy, and safety is at the
    core of that work. And as Chairman Fulcher noted, today's
    hearing marks the beginning of a thoughtful process, a
    bipartisan process, to develop a motor vehicle safety title as
    part of the broader surface transportation reauthorization
    efforts.
        I understand the important role the auto industry plays in
    American manufacturing and competitiveness. My district is home
    to many automotive component parts manufacturers and create
    thousands of jobs, most famously home of the Corvette. So the
    Corvette comes from about 4 miles from my house. It is
    important to ensure motor vehicles and their components meet
    the highest safety standards to protect the public and support
    the millions of workers who build and maintain the vehicles on
    our roads.
        Together, our committee will develop smart, safety-first
    policies that modernize regulations to meet the challenges and
    opportunities of the 21st century.
        This is also a moment to lead globally in emerging
    technologies, particularly in artificial intelligence.
    Autonomous vehicles provide an important real-world application
    of AI to acknowledge these and demonstrate the substantial
    benefits AI can provide to the public through significant
    economic and social advancement. Whether through reduced
    traffic fatalities that my friend Ranking Member Schakowsky
    discussed and my friend from California, Mr. Mullin,
    discussed--reduced fatalities that obviously are shared by our
    side of the aisle--we need to support the mobility challenges,
    AVs can offer an opportunity and independence to millions of
    Americans.
        Further, our work on AVs demonstrates how Congress, through
    existing regulatory frameworks, can appropriately regulate
    sector-specific AI applications.
        And I want to thank Vice Chairman Fulcher for leading this
    hearing, and I look forward to working with Ranking Member
    Pallone and all of our colleagues on motor vehicle and safety
    issues in Congress. I appreciate the witnesses for being here.
    Look forward to your testimony and the questions.
        And I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The chairman recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Fatalities and injuries on America's roads remain
    unacceptably high. Almost 40,000 people died on U.S. roadways
    last year. That is an increase of more than 10 percent from a
    decade ago. And the economic cost of this safety crisis is
    enormous, almost $1 trillion a year in medical bills, emergency
    services, lost productivity, insurance costs, workplace loss,
    legal expenses, and property damage. Drunk, distracted, and
    drowsy driving, as well as speeding, by a relatively small
    number of serial offenders are the leading causes of fatalities
    and injuries on our roads.
        And right now, there are proven solutions to this safety
    crisis, but, unfortunately, they have not been widely adopted
    by automobile manufacturers.
        Congress took action to address automobile safety issues
    with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, and it directs
    the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, to
    adopt rules that deter drunk driving, avert child deaths in hot
    cars, and keep cars in their lanes. Unfortunately, many of
    these rulemakings are not yet complete, and the auto industry
    is suing to challenge one of the lifesaving rules that NHTSA
    completed last year. That rule requires new cars to warn the
    driver and apply the brakes when a collision is imminent.
        As our Nation's auto safety agency, NHTSA has an important
    mandate to save lives by establishing safety standards,
    investigating vehicle defects, and enforcing recalls. We must
    ensure NHTSA has the staff and other resources as well as all
    the authority it needs to protect Americans on our roadways.
        Unfortunately, rather than strengthening NHTSA, the Trump
    administration is undermining NHTSA's critical work to make our
    roads safer. Staff cuts at NHTSA have led to the departure of
    many of the highly skilled and experienced employees it needs
    to move forward with this lifesaving work. NHTSA is also
    hamstrung by the Trump administration's misguided Executive
    orders, requiring the repeal of essential auto safety rules
    before adopting new rules.
        Instead of focusing on proven solutions to make cars being
    sold safer, the Trump administration is betting on the promise
    of autonomous vehicles. And while driverless vehicles have
    shown some potential, they are not by themselves a solution to
    dangerous driving, and they raise their own concerns.
        So I call on my Republican colleagues to speak out against
    this administration's dangerous actions. The American people
    are counting on us to improve the safety of our Nation's
    roadways.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. But I would like to yield the last 2\1/2\
    minutes of my time to Representative Dingell at this time, Mr.
    Chairman.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone.
        As many of you know, I am a car girl, born and raised in
    Michigan, part of the American auto industry, and I worked for
    the industry for more than 30 years. Our auto industry needs
    certainty. For too long it has been treated like a political
    football, caught between administrations, with rules and
    regulations constantly changing. That is not how we support
    long-term investment, protect jobs, and stay competitive in a
    global marketplace that is moving full speed towards
    electrification and advanced vehicle technologies.
        For decades, Congress has worked in a bipartisan way to
    strengthen auto safety. For us to do that, we need a fully
    functioning NHTSA, and it has been too long since we have seen
    it. That means finalizing long-overdue rules to require
    advanced impaired driving prevention technology in new
    vehicles.
        NHTSA must also be proactive in addressing emergency
    vehicle technologies. Autonomous and connected vehicles are not
    a far-off future; they are here today. And without strong
    oversight, there are gaps now in regulation that bad actors and
    foreign adversaries are exploiting at the expense of consumer
    safety and privacy. And China is going to beat us in the
    marketplace to boot. Unacceptable.
        Safety should never be partisan. We all drive the same
    roads. We all face the same threats. We need to get, as the
    ranking member said, a number of rulemakings done and out that
    passed this committee ages ago, like child safety and drunk
    driving.
        I look forward to working together to support NHTSA advance
    vehicle safety and innovation, protect consumers, and keep the
    American auto industry globally competitive and number one in
    the world.
        I yield back.
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to the ranking member.
        This concludes opening statements. The Chair reminds
    Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members' opening
    statements will be made part of the record.
        We thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking
    the time to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses
    today are Mr. John Bozzella, president and CEO, Alliance for
    Automotive Innovation; Mr. David Harkey, president, Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute;
    Ms. Catherine Chase, president, Advocates for Highway and Auto
    Safety; and Mr. Jeff Farrah, CEO, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
    Association.
        Per committee custom, each witness will have the
    opportunity for a 5-minute opening statement followed by a
    round of questions from Members. The light on the timer in
    front of you will turn from green to yellow when you have 1
    minute left.
        And, Mr. Bozzella, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
      OFFICER, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION; DAVID HARKEY,
       Ph.D., PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY;
      CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO
     SAFETY; AND JEFF FARRAH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTONOMOUS
                      VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA

        Mr. Bozzella. Chairman Fulcher, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    Chairman Guthrie, thank you--and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to share my
    perspective today on motor vehicle safety in America and
    policies to modernize the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration to achieve a shared mission: helping to save
    lives and make the roads safer for everyone.
        Some context. A healthy, competitive, domestic auto
    industry is a prized asset among nations. Here at home, the
    auto industry underpins America's economic and national
    security. It is our largest manufacturing sector, 5 percent of
    GDP, 10 million American jobs, pumping $1.2 trillion into the
    economy every year. But the industry is experiencing headwinds.
    This includes China, where we are facing unfair competition
    from government-subsidized vehicles and technologies. And it
    also includes tariffs, which are a significant near-term
    challenge.
        I know the President and his team are finalizing agreements
    with our automotive trading partners to deliver some clarity.
    That is positive. But I will say this: Automakers are committed
    to building and investing in America, but automaking is a long-
    lead-time, high-asset manufacturing business. And existing
    automotive facilities and global supply chains are massive and
    complex. They can't be relocated or redirected overnight. It
    takes time.
        Against this backdrop of geopolitical and trade
    uncertainty, reforming NHTSA should absolutely be a top
    priority for Congress. When NHTSA works, it actually
    strengthens the industry's global competitiveness. It can help
    speed the deployment of lifesaving automotive technologies. It
    can lead to innovation, increased affordability, and ensure the
    industry is competitive against China.
        The auto industry wants--it needs--a functioning and
    effective safety regulator. We don't have that today. Here is
    what I have observed over the last several years.
        NHTSA has become less transparent and less collaborative.
    The agency isn't nimble. Rulemakings take too long, if they
    come at all. NHTSA isn't rating new safety technologies fast
    enough or often enough to help consumers make informed
    purchasing decisions. Rules accumulate even when some are
    clearly obsolete.
        Meanwhile, there were nearly 40,000 deaths on our roads
    last year. It is a shocking and tragic number that isn't
    acceptable to anyone. And it comes at a time when vehicles are
    safer and come equipped with more driver assistance technology
    and crash protection than at any time in history.
        So why is this? What is happening? Where a safety
    partnership once existed, automakers today are surprised by
    NHTSA's actions. We shouldn't be surprising each other.
    Instead, we need a revitalized partnership, real dialogue, an
    aligned research agenda to achieve what I assure you is a
    shared mission to help save lives and make our roads safer.
        I want to note here that we have had good and important
    dialogue with Secretary Duffy, and I have seen some significant
    actions to advance safety and balance fuel economy regulations.
        So how do we modernize and fix NHTSA? Here are a few ideas.
        One, move beyond vehicle equipment mandates. Reducing
    traffic fatalities requires a systemic and behavioral approach
    to safety.
        Two, modernize the New Car Assessment Program to promote
    innovation, encourage constant safety improvements, and empower
    customers with clear information about vehicle safety. NHTSA
    should rethink NCAP, take oversight of the program out of
    rulemaking and look at how similar programs are working better
    around the world.
        Three, streamline outdated rules. NHTSA should take a look
    at all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ask this
    question: Are they reducing fatalities and increasing crash
    survivability, or are they obsolete regulatory roadblocks that
    hurt innovation and delay deployment of lifesaving
    technologies?
        Four, Congress should establish a national autonomous
    vehicle framework. AVs represent the next leap in personal
    mobility. They will reduce crashes and congestion, provide
    transportation for people with disabilities, and transform how
    we work and live. Countries around the world are racing to
    dominate autonomy. America should be leading and operating
    under a set of national standards for safer and immediate AV
    deployment.
        As I have said, we want a functioning and modern NHTSA, an
    agency that is properly staffed, with enough resources to carry
    out its primary mission--vehicle safety--and is a partner in
    American innovation and progress.
        Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Bozzella.
        Dr. Harkey, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID HARKEY, Ph.D.

        Dr. Harkey. Vice Chairman Fulcher, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to share the perspective of the Insurance Institute
    for Highway Safety on the current state of road safety in the
    U.S. and the role of NHTSA to address our challenges.
        Simply put, the United States is in the middle of a road
    safety emergency. Crash deaths increased nearly 30 percent
    between 2014 and 2022, from 33,000 to 42,000. This spike is
    not--I repeat--is not a global trend. The U.S. is an outlier.
    Among 29 high-income countries, we rank at the bottom based on
    per capita fatality rate, and our rate is more than double the
    average.
        Since its creation in 1966, NHTSA has played a key role in
    moving safety forward through its consumer safety, data, and
    research programs. The most direct impact on consumer safety is
    regulation and the issuance of safety standards.
        For example, the requirement that all vehicles be equipped
    with frontal airbags is estimated to have saved at least 70,000
    lives. Beyond regulation, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program,
    which produces the five-star safety ratings, is an important
    source of information for consumers shopping for the safest
    vehicles. The Office of Defects Investigation is also critical
    for providing consumers with defect notifications and working
    with the auto industry to make sure problems are resolved
    quickly.
        It is important to understand, however, that NHTSA's role
    in the safety ecosystem extends beyond the motor vehicle
    itself. One cannot separate the design and capabilities of a
    vehicle from the driver who operates that vehicle or the
    roadway environment in which it is driven. More than a third of
    our fatalities on our roadways can be attributed to risky
    behaviors: speeding, impairment, distraction, and seatbelt use.
        NHTSA's Behavioral Research program has historically been
    the only large source of funding in the country to help us
    understand these challenges and then develop, implement, and
    evaluate interventions through demonstration projects.
        One of the most influential demonstrations that the NHTSA
    research program engaged in years ago was Click It or Ticket, a
    high-visibility seatbelt enforcement program that began as a
    public-private partnership involving IIHS, NHTSA, and other
    stakeholders in North Carolina in the 1990s.
        Funds from NHTSA allowed for nationwide expansion of the
    program by 2003, and this campaign was a key component of a
    remarkable cultural shift, increasing front seatbelt use from
    67 to 84 percent. Having robust safety data is critical to
    understanding what is and is not working and where to invest
    limited resources.
        NHTSA's data collection enables much of the research that
    IIHS and other organizations conduct. This includes the
    Fatality Analysis Reporting System and other crash databases,
    as well as the national roadside survey on impaired driving and
    the National Occupant Protection Use Survey. Despite its many
    important roles and significant past achievements, NHTSA is
    failing to meet the moment by lack of action.
        We have repeatedly called on NHTSA to require antilock
    braking systems for motorcycles, a proven technology that saves
    lives. We have petitioned NHTSA twice in 10 years to require a
    motorcycle ABS. Thus far, no response. In the meantime, more
    than 30 countries have all mandated the lifesaving technology.
        In the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, NHTSA was
    instructed to issue a rule requiring impaired driving
    prevention technology on new vehicles. The deadline of 2024 for
    a final rule has passed, and NHTSA has only issued an advance
    notice of proposed rulemaking. A mandate from NHTSA would
    likely provide just the push it needs, potentially saving
    nearly 11,000 lives each year.
        In many cases, IIHS has found ways to fill gaps left by
    NHTSA. While we lack regulatory authority, we have substantial
    influence with consumers and vehicle manufacturers. Our IIHS
    Top Safety Pick awards complement the five-star ratings,
    pushing automakers to improve vehicle structures, airbags,
    seatbelts, and other safety equipment.
        As automakers introduce more automation in vehicles, new
    safety concerns are being raised. Given the lack of regulation
    or guidance from NHTSA, IIHS has developed partial automation
    safeguard ratings to help ensure drivers stay engaged while
    using these systems.
        At IIHS we are alarmed by the rising toll of crashes on our
    Nation's roads and dismayed by an apparent lack of urgency to
    fix the problem. For this reason, we recently launched an
    initiative we are calling 30 by 30, a goal to reduce U.S.
    fatalities 30 percent by 2030. We hope all stakeholders will
    rally around this vision and pledge specific actions to
    contribute to the effort.
        For our part, we are going to focus on risky behaviors,
    commercial vehicles, and safety inside and outside of the
    vehicles. NHTSA specifically has an essential role to play in
    confronting our current road safety emergency, but doing so
    requires stronger leadership, a sense of urgency, and a greater
    willingness to act.
        Thank you for your time and interest this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Harkey follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Dr. Harkey.
        Ms. Chase, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF CATHERINE CHASE

        Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chair Fulcher, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, and subcommittee members. I am Cathy Chase,
    president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
        Advocates is a national alliance of leading property
    casualty insurance companies and agents and public health,
    consumer, law enforcement, and safety groups working together
    to prevent crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and curb
    economic costs.
        Thank you for holding this hearing at a critical time when
    motor vehicle crash fatalities are at historic highs.
        America's roads move an ever-increasing number of people
    and goods. We all rely on some form of motor vehicle for
    commutes and carpools, for e-commerce packages to be delivered,
    and for summer family vacations. Unfortunately, we also
    experience tremendous tragedies on our roadways.
        More than 40,000 people were killed and 2.4 million people
    were injured in crashes in 2023. More than 7,000 were
    pedestrians, over 6,000 were motorcyclists, and more than 1,000
    were bicyclists. And for all of these groups, we have
    experienced significant increases over the last decade. The
    leading contributing factors are impaired driving, speeding,
    unrestrained vehicle occupants, and distracted driving. These
    are not just statistics, they are family members and friends
    throughout the country.
        Many victim advocates are joining us today in person or
    virtually. I want to extend my condolences for their losses and
    thank them for their perseverance to advance effective
    solutions to prevent crashes.
        So while this is the tragic news, the good news is that
    proven solutions are available and actionable. Since Advocates'
    inception in 1989, we have worked to advance a holistic
    approach, focusing on safe vehicles, safe road users, and safe
    roadway environments. This approach is akin to what is known as
    the Safe System Approach. Our annual Roadmap to Safety report
    provides a blueprint for how Congress and State-elected
    officials can eradicate the motor vehicle crash fatality and
    injury toll, which by the way comes with a substantial price
    tag.
        The annual economic cost of crashes is approximately $340
    billion. This means that every person living in the U.S.
    essentially pays a crash tax of over $1,000.
        One of the most effective strategies for preventing deaths
    and injuries is proven vehicle safety technologies which meet
    minimum performance standards. From 1968 through 2019, NHTSA's
    safety standards have prevented more than 860,000 deaths, 49
    million nonfatal injuries, and damage to 65 million vehicles.
        When consumers go into auto dealer showrooms to purchase
    one of the largest items in their family budgets, many
    prioritize safety. Yet what they might not realize is there are
    no safety standards for the newer safety technologies. Minimum
    safety standards are essential because they ensure that auto
    manufacturers all have to meet a baseline of safety by a
    certain date.
        Additionally, these technologies are building blocks for
    autonomous vehicles, or AVs. An AV will need to detect and
    respond to all road users, vehicles, and infrastructure in all
    conditions--that is automatic emergency breaking; to monitor
    and react to blind spots--that is blind spot detection with
    intervention; to stay within its traffic lane--that is lane
    keeping assist; to follow speed limits, which is intelligence
    speed assistance; and to know if the vehicle is occupied, which
    is occupant detection, among other responsibilities.
        Also, until and if we reach the day when everyone is in an
    AV, drivers will continue to make poor decisions. This is why
    Ranking Member Schakowsky's leadership with the 21st Century
    Smart Cars Act, Congresswoman Dingell's leadership on drunk
    driving with the HALT Act, and other issues must be brought
    over the finish line by the U.S. Department of Transportation
    or advanced in the next Transportation reauthorization bill.
        In that vein, auto manufacturers and proponents often claim
    that AVs are safer because they don't drive drunk, distracted,
    or tired. No one is disputing that. But AVs also may cause
    crashes that sober, alert, and engaged drivers would routinely
    avoid. AVs, which are essentially billion-dollar pieces of
    equipment with years of research, should not drive better than
    only the worst drivers on our roads.
        Especially with all this new technology, NHTSA is an
    essential agency to be the watchdog and cop on the beat to keep
    everyone on the roadway safe. The agency conducts important
    research, collects and analyzes imperative crash data,
    institutes vehicle safety recalls, and issues minimum safety
    standards. Its ability to effectively protect the public
    necessitates sufficient funding and resources.
        Thank you.1A\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Chase has been retained in
    committee files and is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF17/20250626/118433/HMTG-119-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20250626.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Ms. Chase.
        Mr. Farrah, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JEFF FARRAH

        Mr. Farrah. Chair Fulcher, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify this morning.
        My name is Jeff Farrah, the CEO of the Autonomous Vehicle
    Industry Association, which represents the leading AV companies
    and is committed to American leadership on autonomous
    technology.
        In recent years, autonomous vehicles have gone from science
    fiction, to aspirational, to commonplace. Last month, AVIA
    reported that our members have driven more than 145 million
    autonomous miles on U.S. public roads, the distance between
    Earth and Mars. The number of autonomous miles driven by AVIA
    members has more than doubled in the past year alone, which
    underscores the tremendous progress our industry has made.
        But I will be frank: This progress has occurred in the
    absence of a Federal policy framework and is therefore leaving
    U.S. companies at a disadvantage to competitors in China and
    other countries. For that reason, earlier this year, AVIA
    released detailed Federal policy recommendations called
    ``Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles.''
        Today, policymakers are faced with a choice. We can
    continue to leave a void at the Federal level, which helps
    China's ambitions to dominate the global AV market and also
    puts U.S. States at the forefront of policymaking that is
    desperately in need of Federal direction.
        Alternatively, this committee can lead the way on a Federal
    framework for AVs across all vehicle classes, regardless of
    vehicle weight or size. In doing so, Congress must answer key
    questions on vehicle design, construction and performance, and
    promote safer roads, more accessible vehicles, and strengthen
    supply chains. Putting in place a Federal policy framework will
    have the support of an American public that is increasingly
    riding in autonomous vehicles and loving the experience.
        Data shared in my written testimony demonstrates what we
    have long known to be true: Those who are passengers in
    autonomous vehicles quickly become comfortable with the
    technology and want to experience it again and again. Even
    those who are not passengers in AVs but live in areas where AVs
    operate become convinced of their safety and benefit.
        Our industry is eager to engage with Congress on AV-
    specific Federal policies that supplement the broad authority
    to regulate vehicles on public roads that is currently held by
    the Department of Transportation.
        I commend Secretary Duffy and his team at the Department
    for their early and significant attention on autonomous
    vehicles. In April, Secretary Duffy announced a new automated
    vehicle framework as part of his innovation agenda and has
    included early action items that are a welcome down payment. It
    is imperative this progress continues, and we are optimistic
    that with confirmed administrators at NHTSA and FMCSA that more
    is yet to come.
        Department of Transportation action must be paired with
    activity from Congress. I want to highlight a few critical
    policy items that are needed in Federal AV legislation or from
    the U.S. DOT.
        First, we believe that public trust in AVs is essential to
    their acceptance and that the industry must earn and maintain
    that trust every single day. We are an engagement-first
    industry and provide public education on the technology and
    work closely with local first responders and law enforcement.
        Last year, we released the AVIA TRUST Principles, which
    announced industry commitments and new initiatives to build and
    sustain public trust in AVs. But the AV industry can't do this
    work alone, and the Federal Government has an important role to
    play in building trust in AVs, such as a rulemaking from NHTSA
    to require commercially deployed AVs manufacturers to develop a
    safety case; creation of a national AV safety data repository
    which houses AV incident data and allows NHTSA to share
    information with State transportation regulators; and a
    rulemaking from NHTSA to require a core set of autonomous
    driving system behavioral competency tests to which each AV's
    manufacturer would need to certify.
        Second, Congress and the Department of Transportation must
    also modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to
    address requirements for manually operated driving controls and
    certain indicators that should not be applicable to level 4 or
    level 5 AVs.
        Autonomous vehicles are an opportunity to reimagine what
    motor vehicles look like and how they are designed, paving the
    way for greater accessibility, safety, and social utility. AVs
    will be game changers for the elderly and people with
    disabilities.
        My written testimony provides additional policy
    recommendations that should be included in Federal legislation.
        To conclude, the AV industry is excited to get to work with
    members of this committee to put in place a Federal policy
    framework that supports American leadership. The time is short,
    and it is now.
        Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to any
    questions. 1A\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Farrah has been retained in
    committee files and is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF17/20250626/118433/HMTG-119-IF17-Wstate-FarrahJ-20250626.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to everyone on the panel for your
    testimony. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Farrah, this question is for you, but I also want to go
    to Mr. Bozzella for some comments. As autonomous vehicles
    continue to advance, much of the testing and deployment occurs
    in dense urban regions. However, there is a lot of rural and
    remote areas, including in my State of Idaho. Most of the
    geography would be considered rural or remote, and that
    presents some unique challenges with connectivity, tracking
    capacity and so on, and also with road markings, which can be
    obscured, nonexistent in some cases.
        So can you comment how the industry is working to address
    some of those challenges in the AV industry?
        Mr. Farrah. Thank you very much for the question. I would
    be glad to address that.
        I think the first thing to note is that, when we talk about
    autonomous vehicles, we are taking about level 4 autonomous
    driving systems. These are vehicles that, insofar as there is a
    human in the vehicle, it is merely a passenger. And one of the
    characteristics of a level 4 autonomous driving system is that
    it is confined to what we call an operational design domain.
    This is a set of safety limiting factors that really apply to
    where the vehicle is, what types of circumstances that it can
    ultimately operate in.
        And so when the industry is looking to go into a new
    geographical area, the first thing that they do is very
    extensive testing and mapping to understand many of the unique
    characteristics of where it is they are going to operate. So
    this is why you see a very deliberate and steady deployment
    that is going on, sometimes city by city, highway by highway.
    We are not in a hurry to ultimately deploy these vehicles. We
    want to make sure that safety is always at the forefront.
        And so as we look to expand the footprint of autonomous
    vehicles into more geographies across the country, we need to
    make sure that we are taking into account the special
    circumstances that--you know, whether it is markings, whether
    it is rural roads that sometimes have their challenges.
    Obviously, sometimes when you are operating in highways, it is
    different than operating in city environments. And so we have
    been successful with these deployments across many different
    modes of transportation, but we have to be sensitive to all the
    localities and what they have to offer.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Bozzella, comments on that?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to build on what Mr. Farrah just talked about, I do
    think it is important to recognize, when we talk about highly
    automated vehicles, we are also talking, in addition to level 4
    vehicles, level 3 highly automated vehicles.
        In this case, we do think that there are use cases that
    will support rural drivers and passengers who, for example,
    take long distances and could benefit from the hands-off, eyes-
    off, safe AV vehicle in a personally owned context. But what
    this comes down to, and I think Mr. Farrah would agree, is that
    we need a national framework to make sure that we are building
    use cases that support all consumers--rural, suburban, and
    urban.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
        Dr. Harkey, the vast majority of Americans are avid users
    of cell phones, as you know, other mobile technology. Can you
    share some comments on research that you might have access to
    on mobile phones use while driving, including texting, social
    media, and what are the broader safety implications of a
    technology-enabled distracted driving?
        Dr. Harkey. Yeah, we know that distracted driving is a
    growing problem. It is one that the official numbers from the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are in that
    3,000 to 4,000 range in terms of fatalities that have been
    assigned as a result of distracted driving. Our research and
    others have shown that the number may be as high as 10,000, and
    so we know this is a serious problem that needs to be
    addressed.
        No doubt that mobile phone, that device in our hands is a
    big part of that and something that needs to be addressed. It
    has to be addressed in a couple ways. Of course, we can do as
    much as we can with awareness and education of the general
    public, and that works to some extent. But one of the things
    that we have seen in our research is there are some policy
    changes that can be implemented.
        And so changing those laws from a hold-and-use to simply
    hold, it gives law enforcement greater capability to be able to
    actually pick out the violators of the particular law and then
    be able to have that adjudicated properly in the courts.
        And so I think this is something that is going to be really
    important moving forward. It is going to be a combination of,
    what can we do from an awareness standpoint, what can we do
    from an enforcement standpoint? And more importantly as we
    think to the future, what can we do from a technology
    standpoint in the vehicle itself? There are ways that we can
    limit use, and I think that is going to be really, really
    important.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Farrah, I don't have time for another question, but I
    want to just give you notice I am going to send you a written
    question having to do with opportunities for elderly and
    disabled. You touched on that. I would like to drill a little
    bit deeper, but I don't have time right now.
        So with that, I yield it to the--Ranking Member Schakowsky
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Chase, I would like to ask a few
    questions of you. There are plenty more things that we could do
    to make auto safety, but I want to talk about some--two at
    least that have already passed and yet they have not been
    implemented. For example, we passed kids--what we do for kids--
    kids in hot cars, we passed that. And I thought we were going
    to be able to save the children. So what can we do about that?
        And also drunk driving. I know that is really hard, but we
    still haven't succeeded. So what more could we do on those two
    issues?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky. And thank you so much for your leadership on the
    issue of hot cars. It is just devastating that we are still
    losing children who were either forgotten in the backseat,
    maybe they fell asleep during a family trip, or maybe they
    climb into a car when adults aren't looking at them. And
    especially at a time when this panel is talking about
    autonomous vehicles, surely we can get the detection systems
    into vehicles so that these children don't suffer, both
    fatalities and injuries.
        So as you mentioned, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    directed the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue a final
    rule to have equipment in vehicles that would alert people if a
    child is left in a car. We have not seen action on it. And we
    implore this committee and Congress to continue oversight
    efforts so that that rule can be brought over the finish line.
        Our organization has held numerous demonstrations, of which
    you have been a part of over the years, showing that the
    technology exists and works. So this is not something that a
    new technology has to be invented for. It is there and we need
    to get it into cars.
        Ms. Schakowsky. We really do need to work on it, yes.
        Ms. Chase. Absolutely. And then you brought up impaired
    driving. That is another issue where approximately 10,000
    people are being killed every year on our roadways. And again,
    there is technology. I personally have been in cars that have
    had some of the passive impaired driving technology systems. In
    fact, Mr. Bozzella's organization held a demonstration about a
    year ago, I believe, where they showed that the passive systems
    can detect small amounts of alcohol and prevent people from
    getting behind the wheel, and that is really what we need.
        But until that technology is required, as required in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there are steps that can be
    taken. There is a bipartisan End DWI Act, which should be
    enacted. And that would require all offenders have ignition
    interlocks in their cars if they are convicted of drunk
    driving. And people who have had the IIDs in their cars have
    admitted that it has stopped them from driving while impaired
    and changed their driving behaviors. And that is what really we
    need and want to do in terms of getting impaired drivers off
    the roadways.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Do we need to talk to the drivers, the
    manufacturers to get busy on these?
        Ms. Chase. Oh, absolutely. There is no reason to wait for
    the U.S. Department of Transportation to require these systems
    into cars, although we do support minimum performance
    standards, because we don't want a situation where some systems
    are underperforming when a consumer is expecting them to act a
    certain way. But, for example, right now there are already
    automatic emergency braking systems with pedestrian detection
    in cars, and that is not required until 2029.
        So cars have the ability to be saving lives right now, and
    we do urge auto manufacturers to continue their work to get
    these systems into cars.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. We can definitely do
    better. And I appreciate all the work that you do.
        Ms. Chase. I really appreciate your work.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to the ranking member.
        The Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
    Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. And so--thank you for
    yielding.
        Mr. Farrah, autonomous vehicles account and utilize AI for
    sensing classification, prediction, decision making. In many
    ways AVs present a real-world application of AI with
    transformative potential. One of the themes that we have had--
    or the theme, I guess you want to say, defining theme of this
    first 6 months of most of the committee has been American
    global leadership in AI. Our values or China's values in AI.
        Could you talk about how continued advancement in
    deployment of AVs can help America's global leadership in AI?
        Mr. Farrah. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
    question. And thank you for all your leadership on autonomous
    vehicles and AI generally.
        I will start by saying that I think that autonomous
    vehicles are a really useful example of what we can do with
    artificial intelligence. I think that for a lot of Americans it
    sometimes can be hard to conceptualize how it is that AI is
    going to transform our economy and contribute in many ways. And
    when you see this physical manifestation of AI through
    autonomous vehicles where people can be passengers, they can
    see that their goods are being safely delivered and see that we
    can make huge strides on roadway safety and accessibility.
    These are all really wonderful things that I think that AVs can
    ultimately do.
        But I am very, very concerned that we have not had a
    Federal policy framework in place that is allowing the United
    States to globally lead, because we do know that many of our
    strategic competitors, including China, they are very serious
    about dominating globally when it comes to both AI and on AVs.
    And right now, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our
    back.
        We need to have a Federal policy framework in place that
    allows for private-sector investment, private-sector innovation
    in this space. And so we are very eager to work with you and
    members of this committee to pass AV legislation and also work
    with the Department of Transportation.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. And so, Mr. Bozzella as well, and Mr.
    Farrah as well, so I guess to another kind of thing we have
    been dealing with, and being the Commerce Committee, we are the
    protectors of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, but we
    also have the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And so matter
    of fact, Mr. Fry and I were just kind of talking about just a
    second ago as we were talking about this, and sometimes you
    have to determine where it goes.
        We are also a laboratory of democracy with our 50 States.
    And something--when we leave a vacuum, then States try to fill
    that in. One is they just want to--but to me, AVs are clearly
    Commerce Clause. Unless you are just going to regulate what
    just happens within your State, you are going to build a car in
    one State and it is going to travel to another. This obviously
    needs to have a national standard.
        So the lack of that puts pressure on us, and the States put
    pressure on us by doing it themselves, because if you are not
    going to do it, we are. And that is what we have to be mindful
    of.
        So Mr. Bozzella first and then Mr. Farrah: Can you outline
    the major trends you are seeing in State-level AV legislation,
    explain how inconsistent State laws--or a patchwork of State
    laws, that they are inconsistent with each other--can impede
    safe nationwide deployment and NHTSA's role in regulating motor
    vehicle safety?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    the question.
        You know, we just heard an important dialogue between
    Ranking Member Schakowsky and Ms. Chase about the importance of
    Federal motor vehicle standards on vehicle equipment. That is
    precisely the challenge in the AV space that we are facing
    today. A customer in an AV should be able to understand that
    that vehicle that they purchase or that they lease or that they
    are in is the same vehicle going from State to State, and it
    works the same way.
        What we are seeing in States is, as you said, nature abhors
    a vacuum. States are actually considering and putting in place
    equipment requirements for AVs. This is clearly the--the
    purview of the Federal Government, and if Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards existed, those States would be clearly
    preempted from doing so.
        And so I think the most important thing that this committee
    needs to consider as it works on this legislation is the
    preemptive importance of having a robust AV policy at the
    Federal level that is focused on safety.
        So, example: In California right now, four different
    equipment standards are being considered by the Department of
    Motor Vehicles in California that would be imposed on vehicles.
    This is the vacuum that has to be filled by the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Mr. Farrah?
        Mr. Farrah. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I would say that it is important to emphasize here that
    there is a very strong role in autonomous vehicle regulation
    for State governments. There is a very, very strong role for
    the Federal Government. What is most important is that each
    stay in their respective swim lanes.
        You have 26 States that have passed autonomous vehicle
    deployment statutes, accounting for more than 57 percent of the
    population. Those are a welcome trend. We have worked
    diligently over the course of the last 10 or so years to put
    those in place. But they are speaking narrowly to State issues.
    They are authorizing level 4, level 5 AVs on the roads. They
    are speaking to insurance minimum requirements. They are
    speaking to law enforcement and first responder engagement. But
    the Federal Government needs to be the one speaking to vehicle
    design, construction, and performance.
        And to Mr. Bozzella's point, we are seeing States creep in,
    especially on vehicle design issues. That is not appropriate.
    That is why we need the Federal Government to step in. That is
    why we need Congress to ultimately pass a Federal AV statute.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Farrah.
        And I will yield back. My time has expired.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The chairman now recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
    Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Protecting American consumers by ensuring the safety of the
    products they buy, the websites they visit, and the cars they
    drive is the essential responsibility of this subcommittee.
    Helping NHTSA, our Nation's auto safety regulator, to fulfill
    its mission is a key part of this subcommittee's work.
        Now, there have been reports that as much as 35 percent of
    NHTSA's expert staff have been laid off or otherwise left the
    agency this year. So I am concerned that this loss of
    expertise, along with the Trump administration's proposed
    reallocation of resources at NHTSA, will make it impossible for
    NHTSA to adopt the safety rules that Congress has mandated and
    do other work crucial to fulfill its mission to ensure the
    safety of Americans on the roads today.
        So I have two questions, both of Ms. Chase. First, do you
    share my concerns? And just feel free to elaborate, if you
    will, but I do have a second question.
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question.
        As a fellow New Jerseyan, I appreciate talking with you
    today. And I just want to say it is very interesting that one
    commonality of all of the panelists' testimony--written
    testimony, that is--is that we have all called upon NHTSA to do
    more work. And yet, as you rightly point out, there has been a
    significant reduction in the workforce and some very important
    talent has been lost. And I am very concerned that this is not
    only a short-term concern, but it will have long-lasting
    ramifications in terms of attracting talent at a time when cars
    are getting more complex.
        We need to have the expertise at this agency which is
    charged so importantly with protecting all road users. They
    need to have sufficient resources and sufficient talent to make
    sure that our roadways are safe for everyone. So I absolutely
    share your concern.
        Mr. Pallone. Oh, I appreciate that. You know, over the
    years--not to take away from this issue--you know, we deal with
    the healthcare system. And I remember for the first, you know,
    maybe 20 years that I was here, I hear from everybody. It
    wasn't just a Republican-Democrat thing, you know. Nursing
    homes would come in and doctors would come in, and they would
    say, ``Oh, we can do more with the healthcare system and, you
    know, help more people and provide more services with less--you
    know, with less money.'' And I would say, ``OK, but at some
    point that is not going to be true anymore.'' And I think we
    have reached that point in the healthcare system.
        And I think, generally speaking, you know, you can't give
    an agency more work or provide more patients or provide more
    services and then give them less money. It just doesn't work.
    Or less staff. It just doesn't work.
        But let me get to my next question. NHTSA's five-star
    safety rating system, also known as the New Car Assessment
    Program, or NCAP, is intended to help consumers compare the
    safety of vehicles when they shop. Now, while the rating system
    has been updated in recent years, there is general agreement
    that the ratings have become woefully outdated and we have
    fallen behind other countries.
        So, Ms. Chase, is the current five-star rating--safety
    rating system working for consumers, and what should NHTSA do
    to make sure that the five-star safety rating program is
    helpful to consumers who want to understand and compare the
    safety features of different cars? If you would.
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question.
        This actually is a place where the United States has fallen
    behind other countries, which is very shameful because we, the
    United States, started this program. In fact, one of my board
    members, Joan Claybrook, when she was the head of the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was instrumental in
    starting the NCAP program. But it has devolved over the years,
    and it now really has become like a participation award, if you
    will.
        We have come--fallen subject to starflation, if you will,
    where everyone gets five stars. It is like Oprah, you get five
    stars, you get five stars. And we need to rein that in. There
    needs to be delineation so that a consumer knows, if that
    person goes into a car and, as I mentioned earlier, expends one
    of the biggest parts of their family budget and wants a safe
    car, they know that five stars means something.
        And in the absence of NCAP stepping up, I have to say the
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has done an exceptional
    job in terms of rating and crashing vehicles so that consumers
    can be informed. But this should be the role of our Government
    and of the agency that is NHTSA.
        Mr. Pallone. No, I appreciate that. And, you know, I think
    that more than any other area that I can think of that we have
    jurisdiction over, when you deal with automobiles, the idea of
    consumers', you know, right to know and their ability to shop
    and make decisions if you provide them with information, you
    know, shopping for a car I think is--this is all very
    important, so that is why I appreciate what you said. Thank
    you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to the ranking member.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Harshbarger for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses here today.
        I want to start with you, Mr. Bozzella. In the past decade
    or so, we--new vehicles have been equipped with advanced
    driver-assistance technology called ADAS, which is designed to
    prevent deadly crashes. But while it can improve vehicle
    safety, it is important that these safety features work not
    only when the vehicle comes off the assembly line but for the
    life of the vehicle.
        So do drivers know if the ADAS system in their vehicle is
    fully functional and properly calibrated?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Thank you. This is a very important
    question about advanced safety systems like ADAS. I want to
    make a very important point in the outset. ADAS systems are not
    autonomous driving systems. The driver must be fully attentive
    and fully in control at all times. So ADAS is there to aid the
    driver, support the driver, and provide assistance. So that is
    point number one.
        Point number two, we work on these systems, the durability
    of these systems, and the effect of these systems, and warrant
    these systems like we do for every other part of the car. So it
    is really important that they work and they work all the time.
        And the last point I would make about ADAS is, when you
    build an ADAS vehicle that combines two different types of
    technologies, like adaptive cruise control and sort of lane
    centering or lane keeping, it is also important that we monitor
    the driver and make sure the driver is attentive. Those systems
    all do work and need to work over the life of the vehicle.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. So my understanding is that there
    isn't a universal way for vehicle owners to see that that
    system is working properly. Should there be a standardized
    maybe EML on vehicles so owners will know that their system is
    functioning properly?
        Mr. Bozzella. So I would love to learn more about your
    concern. The vehicles that I am familiar with make the customer
    aware of when the system is working and when it is not, when it
    is on and when it is off. I do think it is important that we
    educate customers about how the systems work and what their
    limitations are. So I do think education is an important part
    of this.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Do the automakers provide independent
    automotive businesses with information on how to maintain that
    ADAS functionality?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. This is critically important. The
    manufacturers provide all of the data necessary to diagnose and
    repair vehicles to everyone, both dealers as well as
    independent repair shops.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. That was my next question.
        Mr. Bozzella. Sorry.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. That is great. No, you answered it. You
    saved me 3 seconds.
        You mentioned how vehicle manufacturers need to jump
    through two, three, four hoops when it comes to complying with
    the mission requirements. So explain just very briefly how CAFE
    standards, which benefit smaller cars, how they can actually
    hinder safety standards.
        Mr. Bozzella. The challenge with emissions and fuel economy
    regulations is we have four different agencies and seven
    different rules regulating one vehicle, and so there is an
    enormous amount of confusion and waste in the system that
    doesn't produce emissions benefits, and so that is really the
    biggest challenge. For the most part, manufacturers can achieve
    both more safety and more fuel efficiency at the same time. The
    key is aligning all of the agencies on one national program.
        Mrs. Harshberger. Man, I know what you are talking about
    when it comes to agencies.
        Mr. Farrah, I have got about a minute left. I keep reading
    reports hailing AVs for their safety benefits, but you
    mentioned how some of NHTSA's safety requirements should be
    modified or removed. So can you briefly clarify in more detail
    which safety requirements need to be changed for AVs, and how
    will that not jeopardize patient--passenger safety, or patient
    safety?
        Mr. Farrah. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the
    question. I appreciate it.
        I will say a couple of pieces. I will say the first thing
    to note is, when we all get in our cars and we are leaving at
    the end of the day, if you look around, you see all these
    things that are put around you. They are put there because, to
    date, a human has been the one driving a vehicle, and so our
    vehicles are all very human-centric. And why we have a steering
    wheel and a brake pedal and a rearview mirror in certain places
    and whatnot, it is there to help you to be able to safely
    operate the vehicle.
        But, if you step back and think, ``OK, what happens in a
    world where an autonomous driving system can do all the
    driving?,'' you would design the vehicle in an entirely
    different way. We need to make sure that we are modernizing the
    rules that NHTSA has in place to account for that situation
    where we are now going to have this autonomous driving system
    that will ultimately do the driving. It is going to help us to
    make vehicles more accessible, make them more safe in the
    future, and so this is an exciting opportunity we can speak to
    that in Federal AV legislation.
        Mrs. Harshberger. That is good because I drive back and
    forth to DC, and it is 6 hours.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Harshbarger.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Castor for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        Automobile safety touches everyone, everyone across the
    country. It is so important. And, unfortunately, I represent a
    community where it is actually one of the most deadly places in
    the country to be a pedestrian. On average, at least one person
    walking and one person biking are involved in a crash every day
    with many resulting in serious injury or death. This is a
    costly and tragic problem.
        In fact, my hometown newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times, has
    really been pressing the issue. They wrote earlier this year
    the Tampa Bay metro area has been one of the most dangerous
    places to walk in the United States. A pedestrian is far
    likelier to die in Tampa Bay than in much--the much busier,
    much larger New York City, three times as likely when
    accounting for the Big Apple's larger population--three times.
    In a typical year in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties,
    drivers hit more than 1,000 pedestrians. About 100 of them die.
        Thank you, Ms. Chase, for recognizing that these are all
    individuals and not just statistics. It is a stark reminder
    that pedestrians stand little chance when things go wrong.
        Now, we tried to do some things in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law. We sent large grants back home to address
    the backlog of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, the way
    we develop our roadways. Under the Biden administration, NHTSA
    started a substantial number of safety rulemakings and
    finalized several rules that will save lives.
        But I share the concern that Ranking Member Pallone raised
    that you confirmed, Ms. Chase, that these arbitrary cuts and
    taking the cops off the beat, firing experts, delaying
    rulemakings is not going to do anything to help save lives,
    ultimately.
        But we benefit back home from the expertise. At the
    University of South Florida, we have a Center for Urban
    Transportation Research. They have been--they do a lot on
    safety practices, and they highlighted to me the most important
    things we can do are technological and behavioral changes. I
    think distracted driving right now is such a problem.
    Everywhere you go, people are--you look at--I often count cars
    of people that are on their phones as they drive.
        Now, we have directed NHTSA to address this, but where are
    we with this, Ms. Chase? Where are they?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for your question, and I just want to
    commend you for bringing up pedestrian safety. Going for a walk
    should not mean a death sentence, and that is what is happening
    in our sidewalks and roadways right now, and it doesn't have to
    be. There is technology available, automatic emergency braking
    with pedestrian detection that is in some cars and should be in
    all new cars that prevents people from getting killed.
        Additionally, cars can be designed so that they are more
    forgiving if they are in a crash with a pedestrian so that the
    vehicle absorbs the energy, instead of the person, who is
    obviously more vulnerable.
        But, in terms of your question of where are we, NHTSA is
    behind. NHTSA needs more resources to bring needed rulemakings
    over the finish line in a very--in a number of areas, and I
    would like to focus specifically on advanced driver-assistance
    systems, which Mr. Bozzella brought up. These are systems that
    we know, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety, can reduce crashes, and they can reduce crashes whether
    someone is distracted, impaired, drowsy. And all of these
    things are happening behind the wheel.
        So, if a car--if a driver, you know, falls prey to one of
    these characteristics, the vehicle can take over. It can brake.
    It can center a lane. It can capture a blind spot and take
    action so that a bicyclist or a pedestrian isn't hit. So we
    really need NHTSA to get going on these rulemakings and----
        Ms. Castor. Didn't NHTSA finalize a rule in 2024 requiring
    automatic emergency braking on all new cars sold after
    September 2029? I note that it is being challenged in the
    courts by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
        Dr. Harkey, is the institute involved in that litigation?
        Dr. Harkey. No, we are not directly involved in that
    litigation. Our role in AV testing and evaluation is strictly
    to figure out, are these systems performing at a level that
    will prevent the kind of harm, both for vehicle-to-vehicle
    incidents as well as vehicle to pedestrian and now moving into
    vehicle to bicyclists. So we are looking at all aspects of
    that.
        Ms. Castor. And does your data show that that would save
    lives, that rule on braking being integrated into vehicles?
        Dr. Harkey. What our data shows is that the systems that
    have been built are resulting in a 50 percent reduction in
    front-to-rear vehicle-to-vehicle strikes and a 27 percent
    reduction in vehicle-to-pedestrian strikes currently, and those
    are for lower speeds. Our most recent testing, we have now
    increased those speeds, increased the number of targets that
    they must address, and so--and we are seeing better performance
    from the automakers. And so the auto industry is working hard
    to continue to improve performance with respect to those
    systems, and we are going to see them get better and better
    over time.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to Representative Castor.
        Representative Obernolte is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Farrah, I was interested in your discussion with
    Chairman Guthrie about the fact that 26 different States have
    already created regulation of autonomous vehicles, and you
    stated that it is important that regulation of AVs be a
    partnership between Federal regulation and State regulation and
    that each entity needs to stay in its lane. And I was struck by
    the fact that we have a very similar situation that has
    developed with respect to artificial intelligence in general. I
    chaired the House AI Task Force, and we included in our task
    force report an entire chapter on the issue of preemption
    because this balance of regulation is so important.
        So I wanted to ask specifically about something that we are
    considering right now in Congress, which is a temporary
    moratorium on State regulation of AI. And we think that that is
    necessary to avoid 50 different State regulators going in 50
    different directions on something that is clearly interstate
    commerce. And, very similar to AV, we think that ultimately
    regulation of AI will require a partnership between Federal and
    State regulation.
        In your opinion, I mean, that moratorium is specifically
    for AI. So general-purpose regulation of AVs, as long as it
    doesn't specifically touch AI, should be exempted. Do you see
    the moratorium as a positive or a negative to the development
    and adoption of AVs?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    question. We have obviously been close observers of that
    discussion on the moratorium, and there is a discussion going
    on in the Senate as we speak. And so what I can say is that our
    read of the rule of construction related to that moratorium
    would preserve the State AV deployment statutes that would
    advance the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on our roads.
        Our organization has worked very diligently for about a
    decade to pass the 26 AV deployment statutes. We want to make
    sure they remain in place because, as you say, there is a
    really excellent opportunity here for partnership, for
    federalism to exist, where States are having a lot of
    jurisdiction around specifically authorizing vehicles on the
    roads, regulating things that are within their purview. But the
    fact of the matter is the Federal Government has not caught up.
    They are not doing what is needed around vehicle design,
    construction, and performance. That is what we are looking for.
        Mr. Obernolte. Right. I would say a similar situation
    exists with respect to AI in general, and we are going to try
    to fix both of those things here.
        Another question for you. In your testimony, I was very
    interested when you talked about the fact that public trust is
    going to be essential for the success of AVs and all of the
    benefits that that technology can bring to our society,
    particularly with respect to lowering accident rates. And you
    talked about some things like the creation of safety data,
    repositories, and behavioral competency tests that can enhance
    public trust, but I am wondering if the problem isn't much
    bigger than that.
        And the reason why I say that is that, when there is a bad
    vehicle accident, locally you might see something about it on
    the local news, but when there is one accident in a Tesla on
    auto pilot in Florida, we hear about it in California. So, you
    know, the public has adopted this risk model with AVs that is
    very dissimilar to the risk model that they accept when they
    drive their own vehicle on a highway, and it would seem to me,
    as a society, from a logical standpoint, as soon as the safety
    level of AVs exceeds the safety level generally of human-
    piloted vehicles, we ought to celebrate that as a success. But,
    instead, you know, the attitude is that one accident is too
    many, and someone must be at fault, and it must be fixed.
        So how do we reconcile those two different risk models?
    Because it seems to be like that is a lot more critical than
    the other things you mentioned.
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, I think you really touched on an
    important issue, and we are very eyes-wide-open about the
    reality that this is a new technology. It is something that
    most Americans have not had the opportunity to experience. That
    is going to--increasingly that they will have access to this in
    the coming years, but this is something that is very new and
    fresh to a lot of people. They have a lot of questions. It is
    why I said in my opening statement we are an engagement-first
    industry. We want to get out and talk to first responders, talk
    to mayors, talk to local community members, talk to citizen
    groups, explain who we are, explain what the technology can do,
    what the safety benefits are, the accessibility benefits.
        And so we need to continue to lead on that public education
    piece of everything, and so that is just a reality of what is
    going to be the case. And so I think that it is very clear that
    we need to do more to explain this, but I also think that
    Congress can be a partner to all of us in trying to really
    pursue more public trust.
        Mr. Obernolte. I would agree.
        Dr. Harkey, I just have a few seconds here, but we are
    going to have a problem parceling out liability for accidents
    when autonomous vehicles are involved. What is the current
    thinking on how we do that? Because it is a very complex topic.
        Dr. Harkey. It is a complex topic, and I am not sure we
    have the answers yet. I don't know until we actually get cases
    in the courts and actually see the litigation to understand how
    that is going to be parsed out and where it is going to fall in
    terms of the vehicle manufacturer, the insurer that is
    responsible, or the particular driver that owns the vehicle. I
    think all are going to be part of those lawsuits, obviously,
    and so we just don't know the answers as to how that litigation
    is going to play out at this time.
        Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, I wonder if Congress could be
    part of that solution rather than leaving it to rooms full of
    lawyers. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Obernolte.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Soto for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Well, geez, talking about Florida and lawyers?
    That is like a double threat, sir. I ought to get our Chair
    down here to talk about Florida pride. I know Gus Bilirakis and
    my other two Floridians on the committee would be coming to my
    aid on this.
        In all seriousness, we know autonomous vehicles' crash-
    avoidance systems continue to evolve across America. Safety,
    mobility for--I think about young people, seniors, folks with
    disabilities, what this means for them. Central Florida has
    been a big part of this. We have helped develop LiDAR, one of
    the redundancy systems for autonomous vehicles. We have the
    longest-running autonomous public transit, Beep, way back in
    2019--just shows you how new this technology is--in Lake Nona
    in our district, and then SunTrax, which is a partnership with
    the Florida Department of Transportation for autonomous
    commercial vehicles.
        You know, when we look at fast-growing Central Florida, we
    see I-4 expansions we are working on, turnpike, Poinciana
    Parkway, SunRail, Brightline, expansions to help with commuter
    rail and high-speed rail, electric links buses. And, when you
    see these autonomous vehicles that last mile or that last few
    miles, it is going to play a critical role in getting folks
    where they need to go.
        I know, having worked with Beep on first--their first NHTSA
    waiver, now their second one, we are essentially in a waiver
    system right now, which is kind of gray, right? It doesn't
    really help too much when we are trying to do autonomous
    vehicles that there is a lack of rules and an inaction by
    Congress. So I am hopeful that this committee will move on
    this.
        Contrast that to FAA rules on eVTOLs, otherwise known as
    flying cars. We are actually doing a vertical eVTOL flying car
    area for Orlando International Airport because that rulemaking
    came out. But, as far as I could see it, we had NHTSA rolled
    out their first national framework in December 20th under the
    Biden administration that had a proposed voluntary view in
    reporting. We saw, about 5 months later, the Trump
    administration came out with a second framework that
    incorporated those safety aspects and added in innovation and
    commercial deployment, but I have got to say it is still a
    little light, right? It is not really particularly substantive.
        Mr. Farrah, you know, we haven't seen a lot of movement on
    rulemaking, and you add in the 50 percent of the autonomous
    vehicle department being axed under DOGE. How is NHTSA doing on
    rulemaking right now? It has been slow, right?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    question, and I wanted to really make a point of commenting on
    something you talked about, which really--the opportunity
    especially around shared mobility for the elderly and people
    with disabilities, and that is really an opportunity, I think,
    for all of us in front of it. And, obviously, Florida has been
    a national leader when it comes to regulation for a very long
    time.
        Mr. Soto. But how is NHTSA doing? Are they slow? Is the
    cuts affecting them?
        Mr. Farrah. I think, early days, we have seen some very
    encouraging signs. Obviously, we are only a handful of months
    here into the administration. We have seen Secretary Duffy talk
    about his Federal framework and the need to take action there.
    We are hopeful that, with a confirmed NHTSA Administrator and a
    confirmed Administrator from CSA, we will see additional
    activity, but I really think it underscores the need for this
    committee to be acting on Federal AV legislation to give those
    nudges to the Department of Transportation.
        Mr. Soto. Do they have authorization already to do
    regulation on AVs under their existing authority?
        Mr. Farrah. NHTSA and the Department of Transportation has
    a tremendous amount of latitude to initiate new rulemakings.
    That said, they have been slow to do it historically, and I
    think----
        Mr. Soto. So they could. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Bozzella, tariffs. Right? We saw 10 percent across the
    board, 50 percent on steel and aluminum. We know it is raising
    the prices of vehicles. Is it also affecting innovation in
    areas like autonomous vehicles?
        Mr. Bozzella. It could. And really it depends on how long
    this environment lasts and to what--and how expansive it is,
    but certainly with regard to not only tariffs, import tariffs,
    but also export controls, those types of policies could affect
    the pace of innovation.
        Mr. Soto. And we already saw USMCA. We had established a
    framework. We even lifted the percentage that it needs to be
    built in the United States for it to be an American car, and so
    how are automakers feeling right now in the certainty of their
    business?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. So--and Congresswoman Dingell touched on
    this in her opening remarks. I mean, the industry does best
    with certainty, where we have clear running rules and we know
    what those rules are, and we adjust to manage them. So what we
    are hopeful of is that these rules will be clarified, that
    negotiations will be completed, and we will understand what the
    rules are. We will make the adjustments necessary, and we will
    move forward. That is what we need, is the clarity to make the
    adjustments.
        Mr. Soto. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to submit the
    Specialty Equipment Marketing--Market Association, SEMA's,
    letter in support of the efforts we are doing here today.
        Mr. Fulcher. Sorry, repeat that, Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. The Special Equipment Market Association. It is
    actually a courtesy to Ms. Harshbarger.
        Mr. Fulcher. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Soto. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Soto.
        Representative Fry, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
        Dr. Harkey, in your testimony, you reference international
    trends, and in terms of crash prevention and vehicle safety,
    what countries have good models that we should look at when it
    comes to that?
        Dr. Harkey. Thank you for the question. It is a great
    question. Trying to parse out what makes other countries better
    than us is sometimes a challenge, but there's some themes that
    are there. The first is that you hear a few of us talk about is
    systemic approach to safety that has been integrated into all
    elements of government in a number of countries. And so,
    whether it is Sweden, the Netherlands, there are a number of
    countries where they have done this, and they have done it
    well.
        You know, we adopted the Safe System Approach as part of
    the National Roadway Safety Strategy, the USDOT did back in
    2022, but we have failed to implement it in this country. And
    so it is an example, one example of something that happens in
    other countries that we are not doing here. And I actually do
    think that Congress could help encourage the USDOT to do that
    and provide more support for them to be able to do that at the
    State level, at the local level.
        Culture is also a big thing. You do not see impaired-
    driving problems in other countries the way that we have those
    here, and so this is where technology in vehicles like passive
    alcohol detection can help address those problems moving
    forward, and we need to be thinking about how technology can
    help.
        Technology on the other side, the other thing I would say
    is action in these countries to do things like speed safety
    cameras is very aggressive, and speed is a huge problem. It is
    more than a quarter of the fatalities in this country, and so
    that is another area where you see that.
        And then the final thing I would say about what is
    happening in these other countries is policy. They have the
    ability, because they are much smaller than we are, they have
    the ability to federalize and put policies in place that go
    across the entire country, and it is easy for them to do that.
    We still have States that are putting policies in, but we can
    encourage things at the Federal level for States to do and
    incentivize things at the Federal level for States to do to
    address the risky behaviors that you see on our roadways.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. In your written testimony--you
    talked about just a second ago as well--you talked about
    overreliance on automation systems becoming a problem. What
    does your data show about how consumers interpret features like
    lane keeping or adaptive cruise control?
        Dr. Harkey. So we--our work on those systems has generally
    been on the performance side in terms of how well those systems
    work with respect to keeping the driver in their lanes or
    adjusting the throttle and braking and keeping them out of
    crashes. What we are seeing in terms of our research is, when
    we survey drivers on the use of these systems and their
    understanding of what these systems can do, the thing that is
    the most frightening about the partial automation systems is
    that the lack of understanding, as was referred to earlier,
    that these systems are not self-driving. The drivers are
    interpreting these in some cases to be self-driving systems,
    and that is where you get into the overreliance problem.
        And so we need to do a better job, NHTSA needs to do a
    better job of helping get us drivers to understand what these
    systems are and, more importantly, what they are not.
        Mr. Fry. Yes, what their limitations are. That is kind of
    important.
        Mr. Farrah--thank you, Dr. Harkey, I appreciate your
    testimony--in your view, what is the most realistic timeline
    for level 4 autonomous vehicles to be deployed at scale in
    urban developments, and what factors increase or decrease that
    timeline?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you so much for the
    question. Level 4 autonomous vehicles are here. Our members
    have driven more than 145 million autonomous miles on U.S.
    public roads. That is ever increasing. And so what you are
    seeing is different types of autonomous vehicles are being
    deployed in different fashions. There are many robo taxis that
    are being deployed in various U.S. cities, and so that will
    likely increase over the course of the next several years.
        And so I anticipate that, as you see more cities having
    autonomous vehicles deployed, you also see the footprint of
    those vehicles expanding out into more suburban areas and
    hopefully then rural areas, and then obviously you see
    autonomous trucking, which is a huge aspect of the autonomous
    vehicle industry, which is moving cargo today across different
    parts of the southwest, southeast United States.
        Mr. Fry. You spoke about AV accessibility, and I think the
    chairman actually was going to go on this before he ran out of
    time, but regarding elderly people and people with
    disabilities, can you give some concrete examples of where AVs
    have closed that gap or where technology shows the most
    promise?
        Mr. Farrah. Absolutely. And I will say, Congressman, my
    grandmother is going to turn 95 years old on Saturday, and so I
    have watched as she----
        Mr. Fry. You better there be for the birthday.
        Mr. Farrah. As she has gotten older, I have seen her
    independence wane. I have seen her not have the opportunities,
    and thankfully, she has a very strong family that is able to
    take her to things, but not every American has that. We need to
    find a way to have people be able to get to jobs more easily,
    get to social settings more easily. We have seen a lot of the
    negative effects of that, and so autonomous vehicles can drive
    down the cost of transportation, make it so that ownership of
    vehicles is not as necessary. You have that shared mobility.
    You have ride share that can ultimately help. And so the
    elderly in the United States are really going to be one of the
    main beneficiaries of this technology.
        Mr. Fry. I see the hammer has come down. My time has
    expired, but thank you guys for your testimony.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Fry.
        Representative Trahan is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is no secret that modern automobiles have become
    computers on wheels powered by millions of lines of code and
    outfitted with hundreds of sensors. Today's cars are smart.
    But, just like any other computer system, they carry tremendous
    privacy and security risks.
        On a single ride to the grocery store, the average car
    might collect real-time data on a driver's location, detailed
    information on their driving habits, even physical information
    like the driver's height and weight. It is clear from some of
    this data can help make our roads safer, and I am certain it
    often does. But, without guardrails, this data can be secretly
    transferred to third parties for purposes that are wholly
    inconsistent with the driver's understanding or expectations.
        Like most Americans, I feel strongly about the need to
    control my data. The suspect in the recent shooting deaths of
    Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband
    had in his position a list of so-called people search websites.
    Reports suggest that he may have used these sites to determine
    his victims' home addresses. The harrowing ordeal has renewed
    calls for privacy protections, especially the right to be
    deleted, an idea that I have championed in legislation like the
    DELETE Act.
        So, Mr. Bozzella, more and more car companies are
    collecting sensitive data, tracking visits to psychologists,
    places of worship, even revealing when Americans cross State
    lines to seek abortion care. Alarmingly, an investigation by
    Senator Wyden last year found that several car companies do not
    require a warrant before they turn over location data to law
    enforcement. He also found that several car companies sold data
    to data brokers, some for pennies on the dollar.
        So what responsibility do you believe car companies have to
    protect the privacy of vehicle owners, including handling
    requests from law enforcement and the sale of consumer data?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. This is a very, very important issue for
    the reasons you mentioned. These are computers on wheels. They
    collect this data for very important critical and necessary
    reasons. Much of this data is used to manage the safety systems
    of the vehicle, for example. The biometric data that you
    mentioned, my weight, for example, indicates the power of the
    air bag, for example. Telematics data allows a first responder
    to know where my car is, even if I can't respond to a phone
    call. So these are important things.
        Now, manufacturers are responsible. We have, since 2014,
    had privacy principles, voluntary privacy principles, which
    were groundbreaking at the time, where companies committed to
    protect the data of their customers, especially this sensitive
    data. Context is important. Transparency is important. And
    consent is important. Those principles are enforceable by the
    Federal Trade Commission. We expect our members will follow
    them, and there are consequences when they don't.
        Mrs. Trahan. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Bozzella. Last point: We need a Federal privacy law.
        Mrs. Trahan. I couldn't agree with you more. I couldn't
    agree with you more, and I am happy that the principles
    included data minimization, transparency, and choice.
        Now, while today's computers are moving--I mean, while
    today's cars are moving computers, I think it is fair to call
    autonomous vehicles moving supercomputers. AVs rely on
    abundance of external sensors to operate safely and
    effectively, including LiDAR, radars, and cameras. And these
    sensors introduce novel privacy concerns to top the risks to
    individuals present in today's car. The continuous video feeds
    collected by AVs could in theory be fed into a larger
    centralized network alongside other data sources. To be blunt,
    I am concerned that we could create a mobile surveillance data
    if we aren't careful.
        Mr. Farrah, in your testimony, you state that Congress
    should include in any comprehensive legislation regulating AVs
    language, quote, ``requiring AV manufacturers to develop
    cybersecurity and privacy plans for their technologies.''
        Do you believe that a robust AV privacy plan must include
    data minimization, transparency, and consumer control?
        Mr. Farrah. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the
    question, and I share a lot of the feedback that you received
    from Mr. Bozzella. I would say that we very much want to be a
    part of a Federal data privacy dialogue that is going to go on.
    I share Mr. Bozzella's views on that, and so I think that we
    need to make sure that we are not singling out autonomous
    vehicles. There are many concerns out there in terms of data
    and use of a lot of different type of sensors on vehicles, and
    so we want to be part of that conversation.
        Mrs. Trahan. Great. Thank you so much. It is clear that
    this committee should be working in a bipartisan fashion on
    comprehensive privacy legislation that covers every sector,
    including AVs, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
    on that. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Trahan.
        Representative Mullin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        As I alluded to earlier, I truly believe that advanced
    driver-assistance systems and autonomous vehicles will one day
    dramatically reduce crashes and traffic deaths, and I agree
    that we need to innovate and move quickly to realize those
    safety benefits. As I have discussed both publicly and
    privately, we must ensure that emerging vehicle technologies
    are actually delivering on their promise to reduce crashes and
    save lives. Right now, we are flying blind.
        As NHTSA itself has explained, we aren't able to evaluate
    relative safety performance of AVs or how they interact with
    road users because we don't have the data. As Ms. Chase
    mentioned in her testimony, there have been numerous incidents
    in and around my district, including situations where AVs
    entered construction zones, sped through crosswalks, drove
    erratically, blocked traffic and transit lanes, and interfered
    with first responders, including blocking the path of fire
    trucks. But we simply don't know the extent of the problems.
        Now, I get it. I understand this technology is in its early
    stages and will keep getting better over time. But how will we
    know when it is better? These are exactly the kinds of
    situations that make the case for stronger oversight and
    standardized reporting.
        I have been encouraged by recent conversations with
    industry leaders, including many represented here today. There
    is a growing agreement that more transparency around this
    potentially transformative technology is both necessary and
    responsible. And I know human drivers can be erratic, too. So
    let's make sure we have the data so we can be assured that AVs
    are performing safely or maybe even more safely than humans. We
    just don't know yet.
        So, Mr. Farrah, you mentioned in your testimony that AVs
    have now driven, I believe the number was 145 million miles in
    the U.S., although it is important to note for comparison that
    Californians alone drove 340 billion miles every year. So we
    need to collect much more data to draw any conclusions. But
    could you tell me who is collecting and validating AV driving
    data right now?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    question. Right now, the autonomous vehicle industry is doing
    data reporting under the standing general order that NHTSA is
    collecting information, so we are providing information about
    AV incidents to NHTSA at the Federal level. That information is
    publicly shared on the website, and there is, you know,
    obviously a robust amount of information there. Sometimes it
    gets misunderstood and needs to be cleaned up. We need to make
    sure we don't have duplication.
        But what we have said as an industry is let's step back
    from the standing general order. Let's put in statute a
    national AV safety data repository that will capture that AV
    incident data. Let's improve it, and let's make State
    regulators a part of the process because when we--in our
    travels to various State capitals, many State departments of
    transportation, departments of motor vehicles, they want to be
    a part of the equation. They want to get more information from
    the Federal level. And so what we have said is, let's share
    that information out through this national AV safety data
    repository. Let's allow that information to be shared with
    relevant State regulators about incidents in their district,
    and so that is something we would be very eager to work with
    you and your office on.
        Mr. Mullin. I am encouraged to hear about this progress,
    and I understand that NHTSA collects data about collisions, but
    beyond that, is there any requirement to report vehicle miles
    traveled, for example, VMT, or how AVs are performing in
    complex high-risk environments like near schools and work zones
    or around first responders, for example?
        Mr. Farrah. The incident data that is shared via the
    standing general order right now does talk about a lot of--any
    incidents that are occurring. In terms of vehicle miles
    traveled, that is something that we would support the AV safety
    data repository expanding to. I think that is a relevant point.
    Obviously, we as an industry have taken that on in terms of
    producing the data point that you mentioned around 145 million
    miles, but that is something that we would very much like to do
    that in partnership with our regulator.
        Mr. Mullin. And let me just emphasize, I have been
    heartened by the discussions I have had with industry leaders,
    including AVIA. Do you still agree, though, that there is a
    need for more transparency in this arena?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, right now, there is more data
    known about autonomous vehicles than any other type of vehicle
    that is on our public roads, and so, if you combine what is
    available at the Federal level in conjunction--obviously, in
    your home State of California, the Department of Motor Vehicles
    is a very robust regulator, the CPUC in California for fared
    passenger service is a robust regulator.
        So there is a tremendous amount of data that is available,
    and it is providing a lot of great insights about the safety
    record of autonomous vehicles, which is extraordinary, and so
    we need to find ways to make sure that that is more easily
    consumable, avoid some of the duplication that is out there,
    make sure that we are putting this in a spot where people can
    easily understand this because we want public trust in
    autonomous vehicles. We know that goes hand in hand with their
    deployment, and we are very committed to that.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Mullin.
        Representative Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I guess I am glad that all my colleagues are focused on
    autonomous vehicles. So I am going to submit questions for the
    record. But, on top of everything my colleague just said, I
    hope everybody understands China is collecting data right now
    and using it against us. And some day we are going to do
    something about it.
        But, having made that, I want to start by touching on
    consumer safety, specifically on how crash test standards are
    failing women. We know that today's crash test dummies still
    don't reflect the real-world risks women face in car crashes.
    Crash test dummies used in U.S. safety tests are still largely
    modeled after the average male from the 1970s, and I don't even
    look like my colleague Rep. Mullin today, even though women are
    73 percent more likely to be injured in frontal crashes.
        This doesn't seem to be a technology problem. Advanced
    female crash test dummies exist and are being used in other
    countries.
        It seems it may be a regulatory and implementation problem.
    And, while bipartisan legislation has been introduced to
    require NHTSA to adopt the modern female test dummy, experts
    argue that NHTSA already has the authority to act, but they are
    not.
        So, Mr. Bozzella, given that NHTSA has not yet incorporated
    a modern female crash dummy into its testing, can you speak to
    what the auto industry is doing to close that gap and ensure
    vehicles are safe for all drivers?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman Dingell. First
    of all, every driver, every passenger is entitled to the same
    safety. Every human, period, paragraph. And we absolutely have
    to have a regulatory system and a product development system
    and a research and development system that recognizes and
    respects that.
        Now, what we are doing already as an industry is we
    continue to advance crash worthiness, and we continue to
    advance air bag technologies and seatbelt and restraint
    technologies. That is going well. Here is a place where we
    can--and, by the way, there is work being done on advanced
    dummies, as you recognize.
        But, today, NHTSA does not test its current female dummies
    in every driver position that it tests male dummies. Why is
    that? We wrote a letter this week to the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration asking that question. I think it
    is very important that, in their rule test, in their FMVSS
    testing, and in their end cap testing, that they do so.
        Mrs. Dingell. I am going to send you more questions on that
    so we get you on the record, but I also want to talk about CAFE
    standards because nobody else has yet. Today's vehicles are
    much cleaner and more efficient than those of yesterday, and
    that is not by accident. That is because of decades of
    innovation and smart regulation. There is still more work to do
    if we are serious about reducing emissions, protecting public
    health, and keeping our auto industry globally competitive.
        What the auto industry needs now more than anything,
    though, is certainty. Certainty is how we can support long-term
    investment, protect jobs, and stay competitive. To do that, we
    need to bring all the stakeholders to the table, set fuel
    economy standards that are forward looking but also practical
    and achievable. Any future standards must push innovation,
    protect workers, and give manufacturers the predictability they
    need to plan for the future.
        But, as we sit here today, the Department of Transportation
    is planning to reset these CAFE standards, potentially--I am
    afraid likely--taking us backwards, while also redirecting
    resources away from the fuel economy rulemakings. At the same
    time, my Republican colleagues are also trying to eliminate
    penalties for failing to comply with these standards and
    removing any real enforcement mechanism from the equation.
        Mr. Bozzella, how do we expect U.S. automakers to lead in a
    competitive global market if we keep changing the rules? What
    does this uncertainty do to the long-term planning and
    investment needed to stay ahead?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. It is very important that we have one
    set of aligned standards for vehicle emissions and fuel economy
    going forward. I said earlier we have four different agencies--
    three at the Federal level, one at the State level--with seven
    different regulations regulating one tailpipe. This is very
    challenging. And, frankly, it produces no incremental benefit.
    So the first thing we have to do is get alignment.
        The second thing--and I agree with your comment that we
    have to have balanced, achievable standards that reflect market
    conditions and keep us moving forward. That is the place we
    need to be, and that is the auto industry's ambition. We are
    actually heartened by the initial dialogue that we have had
    with the Department of Transportation in recent weeks because
    we do think that there is a recognition that we do have to have
    a balanced standard.
        Let's be honest: The market for electric vehicles is not
    what we thought it was going--today--what we thought it was
    going to be a few years ago when very, very aggressive
    standards were set. Adjustments should be made. They need to be
    made, but they should be balanced, and they should continue
    progress to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I have to yield back, but I do want to make
    the point that there is a demand for some electric vehicles.
        Mr. Bozzella. I agree 100 percent with that. There is, and
    there is progress, and that is clearly a critical part of a
    competitive automotive industry and our future.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Dingell.
        Represent Schrier, recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Despite significant safety improvements and innovative
    technologies to improve vehicle safety, you have all called
    attention to the fact that driving remains dangerous in the
    United States, and rates of roadway fatalities have actually
    increased in the last decade.
        Of course, one thing I don't think any of you have touched
    on yet is pedestrian, cyclist, and scooter safety, injury, and
    death. And so, perhaps, if you could incorporate that into your
    next answer, I would be very grateful.
        So some increasingly automated and autonomous systems hold
    this great promise for making our roads much safer, hopefully
    for everybody, and preventing severe crashes and deaths. But,
    Mr. Harkey, you mentioned in your testimony that we are seeing
    crashes happen when drivers are overreliant on partial
    automation.
        Like, I can see something on the screen, and I still look
    over my shoulder. I haven't gotten to the trust place yet.
        I don't think people truly understand the limits of what
    their vehicles can and can't do on their own. And we have
    already talked about better communications. But, if you could
    add some specifics to that, not just in terms of sensing cars
    but sensing pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters and how that
    factors in.
        Dr. Harkey. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. Let
    me start with what was some stats that kind of back up your
    point about we didn't address it. I certainly didn't in my
    opening comments. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, those
    are three groups of vulnerable road users where the number of
    fatalities, the rate of increase in fatalities, has risen much
    more than others, vehicles in the fatality picture. Pedestrian
    fatalities are up more than 80 percent since they hit a low
    point in 2009. So it is a serious problem and it is one of the
    reasons that we are very much focused on safety not only inside
    the vehicle for the occupants in the vehicle, but we are very
    much focused on how do we protect those most vulnerable outside
    the vehicle in our testing and evaluation program and in our
    research programs.
        I think two things to make points about here. We are seeing
    technologies like automatic emergency braking systems for
    pedestrians working. And so, as I said earlier, there--we have
    seen a 27 percent decrease in those kinds of crashes, vehicles
    striking pedestrians, with AV systems that are designed to
    prevent that. So that is encouraging, and I think we are going
    to see that moving forward. We are going to see that get better
    as we move to higher----
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. That is good to hear. Also, I just
    want to, you know, take some of that blame off the cars. Humans
    carry a lot of that responsibility, too, when people are
    stepping into streets looking at their phones and not listening
    for oncoming traffic. I just want to be clear: You don't have
    all the responsibility for that. It is just that the driver is
    not going to get injured.
        I was also wondering--we talked about cell phones a little
    bit. If you could talk about the safety of touch screens. I
    have found, and this is not my primary car, but the ones I have
    used require me to take my eyes off the road for too long than
    I am comfortable for. I mean, I cannot even turn on the radio
    until I am at a stoplight. I was wondering if you could talk
    about what you have found about the safety of the touch screen
    to the right of the driver.
        Dr. Harkey. Yes, aAnd we have not done direct research on
    that, but I will give you opinions from my team who worked with
    others who have worked in this, and it is a huge human factors
    issue and a design issue in vehicles, and so we are very much
    concerned about anything that takes your eyes off the roadway
    for an extended period of time.
        And the most problematic screens that we have seen are the
    ones where you have to drill through menus to be able to get to
    the right function to turn something on or off or adjust, and
    so it just--the longer your eyes are off the roadway, the more
    risky the situation, the more danger you are putting yourself
    in and your fellow road users in.
        Ms. Schrier. That sounds like just dumb engineering to me,
    maybe engineering done by nondrivers.
        OK. Last question. I have 30 seconds. Expanding on what my
    colleague Representative Trahan talked about with privacy
    issues: There was a story maybe a year ago that a whole bunch
    of people's car insurance rates went up because car companies
    were sharing data about their driving with the insurance
    companies without the drivers being at all aware of this. And
    you can say that this would make things safer--although, if you
    are not telling the driver that they are being monitored, that
    doesn't help their safety, it just makes them angry when they
    get their bill.
        You talked about voluntary privacy commitments. I have 8
    seconds. Which car companies decided to reveal this information
    about their drivers without telling them?
        Mr. Bozzella. So every car company has agreed with these
    principles, and they are enforceable at the Federal Trade
    Commission. So they are not voluntary. They are enforceable.
    But I believe--I--100 percent agree with you that we need a
    Federal privacy framework, a Federal privacy law to clarify all
    of this. But context is important, and most important is
    consent. Consumers should get consent.
        Ms. Schrier. Can you name the companies just so the people
    watching are aware?
        Mr. Bozzella. Of the companies, there was--this is--there
    was one company that you are referring to, General Motors, that
    was the subject of those--that news article.
        Mr. Fulcher. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Schrier.
        Representative Clarke is recognized for 5 minutes
        Ms. Clarke. Good morning--for about 10 more minutes--and
    thank you to Chairman Fulcher and Ranking Member Schakowsky for
    holding this hearing today.
        I want to thank our witnesses for testifying and sharing
    your expertise with us as well.
        I want to talk about the intersection between the
    irresponsible 10-year moratorium on State and local laws
    regulating artificial intelligence that my Republican
    colleagues supported in the reconciliation bill they all voted
    for and State and local regulation of autonomous vehicles or
    AVs.
        AVs are a promising technology that, with adequate
    regulation and rigorous testing, can potentially be very useful
    in curbing roadway fatalities and offering more transportation
    options to persons with disabilities and really to all of us.
    Autonomous vehicles are artificial intelligence to--use
    artificial intelligence to operate and to make decisions about
    how to navigate our roadways.
        It is no secret that there is no Federal framework
    regulating AVs, nor is there a broad Federal law regulating AI.
    So States and local governments have stepped up to protect the
    public and oversee AVs on our public roads. In New York City
    and State, we have laws regulating that specifically allow--
    excuse me, regulations that specifically allow for the safe
    testing of autonomous vehicles. These are not general purpose
    laws. They do not apply equally to AVs and to cars driven by
    people.
        The Republican AI moratorium in the House's version of the
    reconciliation bill would prohibit New York City and New York
    State from adopting and enforcing laws governing AVs, stripping
    the city and the State of their oversight of AV deployment on
    New York roads, making AV deployment that much less safe in New
    York. The version in the current draft of the Senate
    reconciliation bill will prohibit New York from enforcing its
    AV and other AI laws if it accepts funding to build out high-
    speed internet. Either way, New Yorkers lose.
        So, Ms. Chase, are there additional examples of safety-
    enhancing State-level AV regulations that would be
    unenforceable if a broad AI moratorium were adopted?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. We have significant
    concerns, albeit I am not an AI expert, but, as you rightly
    point out, that AVs use AI. So, if there is a moratorium that
    prevents States and localities from issuing regulations--for
    example, certain areas to be contained, as Mr. Farrah pointed
    out, which is called an operational design domain, where
    certain times or under certain weather conditions--we have
    concerns that those will be disallowed under this ban.
        It is still, as you rightly point out, being worked out or
    debated in Congress. So we don't know the final language yet,
    but we have very significant concerns that absent any Federal
    regulations that States should be allowed--they must be allowed
    to protect their citizens.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. And some witnesses today have
    discussed a growing AV industry and expansion of public trust
    in AVs. Ms. Chase, how would an AI moratorium that ends State
    programs to test and provide guardrails for AVs deployment
    impact industry growth and adoption?
        Ms. Chase. Well, I am not an expert on AV growth and
    adoption. Mr. Farrah probably could address that, but what I
    would like to say is that public opinion polls that we have
    commissioned show that the American public is very concerned
    and wary about getting into autonomous vehicles, and if they
    learn that not only are there no Federal regulations but now
    there are no State regulations to protect them in getting into
    a vehicle, that that very shaky acceptance, if you will, of
    autonomous vehicles could be threatened. And our organization
    is not for or against autonomous vehicles. If they can be
    achieved safely and reduce--significantly reduce crashes on our
    roadways, fantastic.
        But what we have been observing--and let me just say, you
    know, there have been comments made about how many miles
    autonomous vehicles, and to the moon and back. Really, to
    compare, it is only--AVs have only driven .004 percent of what
    human drivers drive every year, to just provide some context
    there. So it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. But we have
    significant concerns that, absent regulation, that these
    autonomous vehicles will be put on the roadways, and they can
    already be put on roadways to test and not comply with any
    Federal regulation now.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well.
        Well, Mr. Farrah, you are shaking your head. Would you want
    to add your perspective?
        Mr. Farrah. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the
    opportunity. I think this is maybe an obvious point, but NHTSA
    regulates all vehicles that are operating on public roads. Our
    members are regulated by NHTSA. If they are heavy-duty
    vehicles, by FMCSA as well. Those regulations apply to all
    vehicles. What we are talking about is a Federal policy
    framework that gets at AV-specific items, and so it is not the
    case that these are unregulated.
        Ms. Clarke. I just--OK.
        Mr. Fulcher. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Clarke. Sorry about that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        To be continued, folks.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Clarke.
        Representative Veasey is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is no secret that America stands to benefit from
    development and deployment of AI systems, including in the
    automotive industry. And, at the same time, we have had experts
    repeatedly raise concerns about some of the risk that AI poses.
    I know that a faulty language model may be annoying, but a
    faulty AI in an autonomous car can kill or injure, and the
    stakes are very high.
        This week, Texas passed a new autonomous vehicle law
    requiring authorization from the State's Department of Motor
    Vehicles for self-driving cars on public streets without human
    interaction. And meanwhile, House Republicans have supported
    and passed a 10-year freeze on State regulations concerning
    artificial intelligence. If this freeze is passed by the Senate
    and signed into law, it would effectively prevent States such
    as Texas from implementing their own safety and regulatory
    oversight of AVs.
        So I wanted to ask Ms. Chase, what impact could this
    tension between the States pursuing a cautious approach to AV
    regulation and some of these restrictions that I just talked
    about on States have when it comes to effective integration of
    AVs nationwide?
        Ms. Chase. States should have the traditional authority to
    protect their citizens. That is what the Federal concept is
    about, especially in the absence of any Federal regulation.
        Let me just clarify, when there are no FMVSS standards for
    the advanced technologies, true AVs have to comply with the
    traditional FMVSS, but there is no regulations on these new
    technologies, just to counter the last point. So, to your
    point, it is essential that the States and localities be able
    to protect their citizens, and absent any--and should that
    authority be taken away, that is threatened.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, so how could this--back to you, Mrs.
    Chase. How could this regulatory tension influence the United
    States' position in the global race for leadership in AI
    against our competitors in China?
        Ms. Chase. Well, again, if citizens don't feel safe, they
    are not going to get into cars, they are not going to buy these
    cars. And then the whole, you know, the billions of dollars
    that have been invested in order for AVs to achieve could be
    threatened. So I think it is essential that there be Federal
    regulations, and not just a Federal framework but Federal
    regulations that makes certain that these vehicles perform as
    needed and as expected.
        Mr. Veasey. Right. Exactly. I know that it was deeply
    concerning to a lot of people that, just before Elon Musk
    departed the administration, DOGE slashed the number of
    employees working on vehicle automation safety at the National
    Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, and these cuts to
    critical AV research and regulatory teams came only months
    before Tesla launched its first-ever robo taxi service in
    Austin.
        I wanted to ask Mr. Farrah, given these layoffs and
    potential funding cuts across the National Highway Traffic and
    Safety Administration ordered by DOGE and Trump, how can this
    agency possibly fulfill its responsibility to regulate the AV
    industry and collect the critical safety data needed when its
    hands are tied behind its back?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    question, and I wanted to note briefly you noted the new Texas
    State law that is in place. Our organization worked very
    closely on that law, and Texas has obviously been a tremendous
    leader nationally when it comes to autonomous vehicles.
        In our Federal policy recommendations, we do request that
    there is adequate funding for NHTSA and for safety regulators.
    That is something that is up to Congress to ultimately set the
    levels for that, but we want to make sure that NHTSA and FMCSA
    have adequate resources because we are asking for them to set
    new regulations as it relates to autonomous vehicles. We want
    to make sure there are people in the seats to be able to do
    that.
        Mr. Veasey. Absolutely. And I know that, as the industry
    continues to advance--and it is amazing to go to Austin and see
    all the cars everywhere--but as the industry continues to
    rapidly advance and deploy AVs in our communities, what can
    Congress do to ensure that AVs are equipped with consumer- and
    public-friendly features like blind-spot detection and rear
    automatic emergency braking and rear cross traffic alert?
        Ms. Chase. Are you looking at me?
        Mr. Veasey. Either one, yes.
        Ms. Chase. OK. Great. We strongly encourage Congress in the
    next reauthorization bill to include requirements for the U.S.
    Department of Transportation to conduct rulemakings and issue
    final rules by a date certain for these technologies which the
    Insurance Institute For Highway Safety has demonstrated to
    significantly reduce crashes such as the ones that you have
    mentioned.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Veasey.
        Chair recognizes Representative Kelly for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
    witnesses. Over the past decade, roadway fatalities and
    injuries have increased substantially in the United States.
    Congress has passed bipartisan laws directing NHTSA to adopt
    rules to reverse this troubling trend. NHTSA has been slow to
    implement many of these measures, delaying the adoption of
    technologies which would have the potential to save lives.
        Ms. Chase, speeding is one of the leading factors in many
    motor vehicle crashes. What actions can Congress take to
    promote technologies that will reduce incidents of speeding?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, speeding is a tremendous problem on our roadways, and
    the old adage ``speed skills'' remains true. We support
    intelligent speed assistance, and those require the vehicle to
    comply with speed limits. Speed limits are set for a reason. We
    all know people exceed speed limits and shouldn't, because
    there are safety dangers.
        So what ISA does is make sure, first, it can alert the
    driver to let them know if they are exceeding a speed limit.
    And then it can also--the next step would be to take matter--to
    have the vehicle--slow the vehicle down.
        There is strong bipartisan support. In fact, the first law
    in the country was enacted this year in Virginia that requires
    ISA for offenders such as--known as superspeeders, those people
    we know who, like, race on the highways and have been convicted
    of doing so, to reduce their speed limits. And we strongly
    support that. We also support Federal action to incentivize
    States to continue this.
        Right now, only Virginia, Washington State, and also the
    District of Columbia have these laws, and we want to see these
    laws throughout the country. So ISA is a proven technology to
    combat speeding.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Harkey, regarding my previous question to Ms. Chase, my
    district is urban, suburban, and rural. I start in Chicago, and
    I have 4,500 farms in my district.
        Does the research show distinguishing factors contributing
    to crashes due to excessive speeding between urban, suburban,
    and rural areas?
        Dr. Harkey. Yes, speeding is a problem, as Ms. Chase
    mentioned, everywhere. And so it is a factor in rural and urban
    areas.
        One of the most critical things, though, when you start
    talking about urban areas, where speed really impacts is on the
    pedestrian safety issue. We talked about the vulnerable road
    users, the bicyclists. And so one of the things that we really
    have to pay attention to is how we are addressing speed in
    those areas. And that is where vehicle technologies such as ISA
    can play a role.
        But it is really important to remember, anything we are
    talking about with technology and vehicles is the long game. It
    takes a long time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. And so we
    have to continue to look for things that we can do today. So
    this is where things like speed safety cameras are so critical.
    And we are seeing, you know, a rise in those being allowed now
    in the States, in work zones, in school zones to protect the
    most vulnerable. But we need those more broadly in our system.
        And so anything that we can do as a system to slow down
    vehicles, get drivers to understand the risks that they are
    taking, is an important step.
        Ms. Chase. May I add to something Mr.--Harkey just said?
    Right now, as he rightly pointed out, Federal funds can be used
    for speed safety cameras in school and work zones, but they
    cannot be used outside of them. So it would be a tremendous
    step for Congress to allow Federal funds to be used by
    localities to use speed safety cameras.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Advanced driver-assistance systems are becoming more and
    more prevalent in new and higher-end vehicles. These
    technologies can reduce crashes and save lives.
        Mr. Bozzella, as more level to advance driver-assistance
    systems are utilized in new vehicles, how do we ensure that
    when low-income and middle-class Americans buy cars, which are
    so expensive, they too can have access to these advanced safety
    features that are found in more expensive vehicles?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. This is very important. Safety needs to
    be available for every consumer in every vehicle. And what we
    are seeing with ADAS systems, these advanced driver assistance
    systems, is that they are increasingly available at every price
    point in virtually every sized vehicle. That is encouraging.
    And I think what you are going to see is more of that as the
    technology develops and as customers--excuse me, as
    manufacturers provide these vehicles and customers get
    comfortable with them.
        So I am encouraged by what we see in the marketplace today,
    and I think it will continue.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Just one quick question. We talk
    about speed. Is it generational or is it across the board? Like
    you said, people speed urban, suburban, and rural. What about
    agewise? Whoever.
        Dr. Harkey. Yes, it is across the board. I mean, we see the
    problems. And certainly there are issues with regards to
    demographics and speeding, and so you do have younger people,
    younger males who are often involved in speed-related
    fatalities, and so you do see some differences there. But
    speeding in general is just something that we have to address
    if we are going to get a control on our fatality numbers and
    start to drive them down.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you all so much. And I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Kelly.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Latta for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for
    our witnesses for being with us today.
        You know, it is hard to believe I have been working on
    this, on autonomous vehicles, for over 10 years. We had that
    piece of legislation that passed this Energy and Commerce
    Committee unanimously. It passed the floor. Unfortunately, we
    didn't get it through the Senate.
        But, you know, I think it is important as we look back
    that, you know, the number of highway deaths that we see out
    there in traffic accidents--what is caused out there. We look
    at about 94 percent of all the accidents being caused out there
    because of driver error. And I ride just about every year with
    the Ohio Highway Patrol. And when the troopers--we are out on
    the road--they can point out quickly people that are not paying
    attention.
        And so, you know, we want to make sure that we get this
    legislation passed. Once again, we are going to be
    reintroducing the legislation because we have got to get it
    done, because there are a lot of reasons.
        But one of the things I said it is so important when we go
    and look at this is it has always been safety first, safety
    last, safety always.
        And so, Mr. Farrah, you know, as we look forward in going
    with the AVs that need to be as safe or safer than any vehicle
    on the road today, you know, it is notable that, you know, an
    AV is never tired, it is never distracted, it is never
    impaired. But how else can we ensure that when an AV is on the
    road it meets that threshold and can detect and respond to
    relevant road users?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman Latta, I want to first start by
    thanking you for all your efforts over the course of a very
    long time and acknowledge all of the effort that you put into
    this issue. I don't think there is anyone in Congress who's
    thought more deeply about this and has been more committed to
    this. And you have worked very closely with Congresswoman
    Dingell as well. I know she stepped out of the room here, but I
    wanted to acknowledge her work as well. And very pleased to
    work with you again to try and advance this legislation.
        And I think that you really articulated why this is so
    important from a safety perspective, from an economic
    perspective, and from a strategic competitor perspective. And
    so I think that there are a couple of things that we need to do
    here, really, to make sure that we are advancing public trust.
        And of one those is making sure that the Federal Government
    is speaking to vehicle design, construction, and performance
    issues, which only it can speak to uniformly. And that is
    something that is going to be married with a lot of the great
    efforts that have happened in a variety of U.S. States,
    including in your State of Ohio.
        And so from a Federal perspective what we would like to see
    with Federal AV legislation is speak, first and foremost, to
    trying to get rulemakings off the ground at the Department of
    Transportation, specifically NHTSA, that work to build public
    trust, requiring a safety case, requiring a behavioral
    competency test, and also creating this national AV safety data
    repository that I talked with Representative Mullin about.
        In addition to that, there is also a lot of issues around
    vehicle design that we would very much like to see Congress
    speak to, specifically trying to make sure that we clarify that
    manual controls that are meant for human drivers are not
    applicable to level 4 or level 5 autonomous driving systems.
    That is the way we can modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standard. That is the way we can lead to more accessible
    vehicles that serve more Americans.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Bozzella, in your testimony you mention the importance
    of modifying the ``make inoperative'' provision. Will you share
    why this is so essential?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. And it builds, I think, very much on Mr.
    Farrah's comments. We have Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards that are built around hands and feet and heads and
    eyes. And so--and we also have vehicles that have steering
    wheels and pedals and the like. In an AV context--especially in
    perhaps a level 3 AV context where the vehicle is both able to
    be operated autonomously, say, in a highway setting or in a
    traffic jam setting--those manual controls don't go away, but
    they need to be made inoperative while the ADS, the automated
    driving system, is in control. Federal regulation is unclear
    about what do about that.
        So it is important that the law clarify that a manufacturer
    can do that, right? And so all the testing has been done, all
    of the certifications have been done, safety has been assured.
    When the system is engaged, when the ADS is driving, those
    controls should be disengaged. Current Federal regulation
    doesn't allow a manufacturer to disengage systems that are
    required by Federal law right now--or Federal standards right
    now.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Farrah, I only have about 17 seconds left, but real
    quickly, what happens if we don't act? What is going to happen,
    especially when we are looking forward to the competition where
    it might be coming from? I only have about 7 seconds. Sorry.
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, I will say very briefly that while
    the United States invented autonomous vehicles, we are
    currently the leader, we are far from the only country that
    wants to be the global leade. China, and specifically the
    Communist Party in China, is very dedicated to being the global
    leader on autonomous vehicles. We need a Federal policy
    framework in place to help this industry move faster and
    ultimately lead globally.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Latta.
        Representative Dunn is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm grateful
    to be able to join this hearing today.
        I am here to discuss a critical consumer choice, an
    automotive safety issue that hits close to home for almost
    every American. If you own a truck, a car, or a motorcycle,
    this matters to you, and I am referring to the right-to-repair
    bill. I applaud my colleagues on E&C for supporting my
    legislation, H.R. 1566, the right to repair. We had 60
    bipartisan cosponsors last Congress. We already have 30, this--
    cosponsors this year, and a bipartisan Senate bill for the
    first time. So I want to thank my colleagues on this
    subcommittee, Diana Harshbarger, Cliff Bentz, and Dr. Kim
    Schrier, for already cosponsoring. I offer that opportunity to
    everybody.
        For most Floridians, car ownership is essential. However,
    several colleagues have mentioned there are automotive sectors
    facing some significant marketplace and regulatory changes. And
    as cars become more complex, they have turned into kind of
    computers on wheels, which is great for innovation. However, it
    is imperative we protect the consumer choice about how and
    where we get our cars repaired or whether we repair them
    ourselves. My bill is--I am from that generation. We did a lot
    of that.
        My bill is motivated by a preservation of consumer choice,
    as well as the restoration of fair and open marketplace in the
    automotive repair industries and parts. Where traditionally
    independent repair technicians could just plug into the OBD
    port, analyze critical repair maintenance data, the phase-out
    of these tools in newer vehicles and connected vehicles is
    incredibly problematic, and it is just among other tech
    restrictions as well.
        If you own your own car, then you should own the data
    generated by your car, specifically critical repair
    maintenance, wear and tear, calibration and recalibration of
    parts. This is just a basic concept of ownership. You own it,
    it is yours.
        Over the past 3 years, I have deliberately worked with the
    many stakeholders, including the independent repair industry,
    the auto manufacturers, the aftermarket parts industry, and
    colleagues on this committee, to ensure that there is a robust
    representation of all of these parties in the bill, and I think
    that is why there are new provisions in H.R. 1566 codifying
    protections for intellectual property trade secrets,
    cybersecurity, parity between repair shops and dealerships, and
    cost and access to repair data, and even protections around
    autonomous vehicle systems.
        Just days ago, The Wall Street Journal published an
    article, ``High Costs Have Ended America's Love Affair With
    Cars.'' It is kind of a riveting read. And they show that the
    average cost of owning a vehicle these days in America is
    almost $12,300 a year. That is after--that is just owning the
    thing. So that is a 30 percent rise in the last few years. Cost
    issues, coupled with the mounting complexity of new technology,
    I think that confirms that the REPAIR Act is needed in order to
    update the regulations and level the playing field.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a letter of support from 20 of the
    various organizations in this industry supporting this bill.
    May I submit for the record?
        Mr. Fulcher. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.
        Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much.
        I want to thank the Automotive Vehicle Industry Association
    for working with me to negotiate the AV protections in the
    REPAIR Act, together with your team and Chairman Bilirakis'
    team. We included repair protections around the highest levels
    of SAE standards 4 and 5. This will ensure that the highly
    computerized system should not be unintentionally swept into
    requiring a company to share any computerized data that may
    affect the intellectual property of the autonomous vehicle
    company or IP related to the computerized system of the car
    that is unrelated to repairs.
        I also want to quickly mention how helpful Tesla has been
    in working with our right-to-repair bill. They understand that,
    even though their cars are fancy, they don't mean Americans
    can't take their Teslas to an independent repair shop to get
    things fixed.
        Mr. Farrah, how important is it for the AV industry to
    ensure that Americans still have the option to fix their
    autonomous vehicles', like, bumpers, tires, windows, without
    restricting access to critical repair data?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    comments. And I want to acknowledge all the great effort that
    you took last Congress and also continuing on to this Congress
    and working with Chairman Bilirakis on the specific provisions
    that you referenced around autonomous vehicles at levels 4 and
    5.
        I think it is important to acknowledge that the way in
    which our industry is evolving right now is very much a fleet-
    managed model, where the vehicles are owned and maintained by
    the manufacturer, by the autonomous vehicle developer that is
    there. That is something that will probably continue to evolve
    in the future. We need to make sure from a safety perspective
    that we are maintaining these vehicles at the highest possible
    care because they are very elaborate, very complicated
    instruments. Obviously, the safety of Americans is paramount to
    everything we do.
        Mr. Dunn. And I am sure that we will do that. I see my
    time--the time flies here, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back, but
    I will submit questions for the record for the rest of the
    panel. And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Dunn.
        And for a brief closing statement, Representative
    Schakowsky, the ranking member, is recognized.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
    congratulations on the way you handled this committee. I hope
    you will share this information with Gus Bilirakis, when he
    comes back, that every single Member on the Democratic side
    came and asked questions and were participating. It is not all
    the time that that happens, and many of the Republicans as
    well. There is clearly a lot of interest in this issue, and I
    am so happy about that because we have a lot of work still to
    do about autonomous vehicles, about safety, and I look forward
    to moving forward.
        And I want to say to Gus--he is at his son's wedding, and
    so we want to wish him well, in Greece, yes. So thank you very
    much for your leadership today.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to the ranking member.
        And the Chair now recognizes Representative Kean from New
    Jersey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
    distinguished witnesses being here today.
        As Congress works to ensure that our roadways are safe, I
    am grateful for the opportunity to hear from experts in the
    automobile industry on innovation and the impacts that NHTSA is
    having on safety on New Jersey's roads and across the United
    States.
        So, Mr. Bozzella, the central aspect of the Motor Vehicle
    Safety Act is that NHTSA promulgates Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards and that motor vehicle manufacturers certify
    in compliance with all applicable standards. Can you discuss
    the importance of maintaining NHTSA's self-certification
    regulatory framework and how this framework supports motor
    vehicle safety and innovation?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
        This is an essential structure that supports innovation and
    supports safety at the same time. What is key to this, however,
    is NHTSA has to make sure that they continue to maintain and
    update Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. What we have
    seen is that motor vehicle safety standards that are no longer
    relevant, necessary, or producing safety are often still on the
    books, and then they are--they slow innovation down.
        For example, we have an antiquated bumper standard that
    makes it difficult for manufacturers to put in the bumpers the
    sensors required for automatic emergency braking, for example.
        So Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are critical.
    Self-assessments and self-certification are critical because
    they move these technologies into the marketplace quickly. But
    the key to this is there needs to be alignment and fast
    movements to modernize these.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you.
        Mr. Farrah, can you point to any research that supports the
    safety promise of autonomous vehicles?
        Mr. Farrah. Congressman, thank you very much. I would be
    happy to.
        And I will start by saying that, right now, the autonomous
    vehicle industry, like with lower levels of autonomy, is
    reporting data under the standing general order at NHTSA. And
    so we very much want to see this process evolve and improve to
    create a national AV safety data repository so that Americans
    can better understand the safety of these vehicle, because we
    know that public trust goes hand in hand with the deployment of
    these vehicles, and that is something that our industry has
    very much embraced, and we want to work on a bipartisan basis
    with members of this committee.
        In addition to that, there's also been tremendous amounts
    of data that has been produced both by the manufacturers
    themselves and by the industry writ large. And so for AVIA's
    part, we have been collecting the total amount of autonomous
    miles driven by our members over the course of a number of
    years. We published just last month that our members have
    driven more than 145 million autonomous miles just on U.S.
    public roads. It doesn't include simulation, it doesn't include
    closed tracks. And what is really interesting about that is
    that figure has more than doubled in just the last year. It
    went from 70 million to 145 million. So it really speaks to the
    inflection point that we are at right now with regard to
    commercialization.
        And then last but not least, I will just go back to what I
    said before, which is that a number of the manufacturers have
    been producing data about their safety information that is out
    there. One study that is very, very compelling is that Swiss Re
    did an evaluation of Waymo and 3.8 million miles that the Waymo
    driver drove. And what they demonstrated, there was 100 percent
    reduction in bodily harm claims that were done over that period
    of time. And you think about, that is 3.8 million miles. What
    if we could do that at scale in the United States and have that
    amount of reduction of bodily injury claims? It really goes to
    show the promise of the technology.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you.
        And Dr. Harkey, seatbelt use dramatically decreases the
    risk of a fatal injury during a crash. Can you discuss the
    latest research on seatbelt use and effective solutions to
    promote seatbelt use?
        Dr. Harkey. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        We know the seatbelt is still the most important safety
    feature in a vehicle today, and we stress that in every
    communication that we put out almost. And one of the things
    that is a real challenge is getting people to understand that
    they need to wear that seatbelt--front seat, back seat, no
    matter where you are sitting in the vehicle--at all times,
    under all speeds, under all scenarios. And so it is something
    we continue to work on.
        It is a real disconnect. We observe seatbelt usage in this
    country, and for front-seat passengers above 90 percent now,
    for rear-seat passengers around 75 percent. That all sounds
    really good and it is really encouraging. Yet the number of
    fatalities that we see in our country, almost half of those in
    the front seat of passenger cars are unbelted. And so we have
    got to do a lot more work to figure out how to get people to
    buckle up, particularly those who are at high risk, in
    vehicles.
        And so there is a lot more work that needs to be done
    there. And I would encourage this committee to help NHTSA think
    about what they can do to help with those who are not wearing
    that seatbelt.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Representative Kean.
        To the panel, thank you for your participation today. As we
    have discussed and as the ranking member pointed out, there is
    a lot of interest in this. And anytime there is a new
    technology that comes around, that adoption implementation is
    going to be a key thing, and the interest that you represent is
    going to play a key role in that.
        Dr. Harkey, I will point out to you specifically, when it
    comes to data, there can never be too much of that, especially
    when you are adopting something new.
        So with that, I ask unanimous consent the documents on the
    staff document list be submitted for the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Again, thank you to our witnesses for being here today. If
    Members have additional written questions for you all, they
    will be submitted to you.
        I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
    questions for the record. And I ask the witnesses to respond to
    the questions promptly. Members should submit their questions
    by the close of business Friday, July 11.
        And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]