[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]