U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–613 2017

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–133 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES

Mark Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 119 

Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ..... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 139 

John Bozzella, President and CEO, Global Automakers ...................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 145 

Michael Wilson, CEO, Automotive Recyclers Association .................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 149 

Jacqueline Gillian, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety ............ 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 159 

Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 96 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 164 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Rubber Manufacturers Association ........................................... 113 

Statement of Property Casualty Insurers .............................................................. 115 

Letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association ....................................... 117 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn, 

Harper, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Upton 

(ex officio), Schakowsky, Clarke, Kennedy, Cardenas, Butterfield, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton 

Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Paige Decker, Executive 

Assistant; Graham Dufault, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jay Gulshen, Staff Assistant; Paul Nagle, 

Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, Deputy Press Secretary; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health 

Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 

Energy and Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Diana Rudd, Minority Legal Fellow; Matt Schumacher, Minority Press Assistant; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of 

Communications, Outreach and Member Services. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. I will ask all of our guests to take our seats and 

the subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will 

now come to order. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Administrator Rosekind, welcome to our hearing this morning. It 

is always good to have you here. We look forward to your testimony 

today. There are a lot of important things that we need to discuss, 

2 

some things that have changed since our last visit here, with the 

passage of the highway bill. But we are grateful that you are here 

today. 

Your administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was established by Congress in 1970 to reduce deaths 

and injuries from motor vehicle accidents and help make our nation’s roadways safer. The importance of the agency’s mission cannot be understated. With 50 million vehicles recalled and a surge 

in traffic fatalities last year, it is clear that your work as very real 

and immediate societal and economic implications that affect the 

lives of virtually every American. 

The life-saving nature of NHTSA’s mission requires Congress 

and this subcommittee, in particular, to ensure absolute compliance 

with federal motor vehicle safety standards and their processes. It 

also requires us to monitor the agency’s ability to keep pace with 

technology, keep pace with advancements in automotive systems 

that promise greater safety and mobility. We have seen, over the 

last few years, failure to comply with safety standards or a misunderstanding of a vehicle construction design can lead to delays 

in safety recalls, roadway fatalities, and preventable deaths. 

Based on our focus on auto safety, we have included many reforms in the safety title for which this subcommittee was responsible of the fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act that was 

passed by Congress last year and signed into law last year. Among 

those reforms included to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was to implement the 17 recommendations issued by 

the department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, following a comprehensive audit of the agency’s internal processes. 

Those recommendations are intended to improve NHTSA’s collection of vehicle safety data so that safety defects can be identified 

earlier and faulty cars can be removed from the road faster. The 

recommendations are also intended to help the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration keep pace with complex vehicle technology. 

NHTSA has pledged to implement all 17 recommendations by 

June 30th of this year. Following this hearing, I will send a request 

for a full breakdown of your administration’s progress toward implementing all 17 recommendations. 

The recently passed highway bill also contains a number of other 

measures intended to protect the driving public, including improving NHTSA’s safety recall processes, increasing the availability of 

vehicle defect information to consumers and keeping Congress apprised of the agency’s activities through the submission of an annual agenda. Each of these reforms work together to ensure that 

the agency remains focused and dedicated to its mission of saving 

lives and that the cars American motorists are driving are indeed 

safe. 

We also must ensure absolute compliance with motor vehicle 

safety standards and processes from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and new entrants into the automotive industry. Their role 

in advancing vehicle safety and roadway safety is just as critical 

to the goal of reducing traffic fatalities and increasing safety for all 

roadway travelers. To that end, the recently passed highway bill 

contains provisions that strengthen, remedy, and repair obligations 

3 

among automakers for vehicles under recall and requires greater 

accountability from dealers and rental car companies to ensure 

that consumers driving away from those lots are driving safe cars. 

In addition to the implementation of the FAST Act, there is 

much more to consider today. And I certainly do look forward to 

discussing the status of the ongoing Takata airbag recall. 

Back home in Texas, there was another tragic fatality tied to 

these airbags. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

established a coordinated remedy program in 2015 to accelerate the 

replacement of defective Takata airbag inflators. Despite this program, the take rate, or the percentage of people issued a recall that 

take their vehicle in for servicing remains low. 

Always, I commit to you that we will do whatever possible for the 

public service campaign to make sure this word gets out to consumers. 

I hope to hear about your coordinated remedy program and what 

additional action NHTSA is planning to solve this problem. I also 

look forward to discussing how the agency is working with automakers to protect vehicles from cyber threats and how the agency 

is preparing for the industry’s future of crash avoidance technology, 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications, autonomous cars and beyond. 

We provided for a significant increase in resources for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the recently 

passed highway bill. Some of those are contingent upon meeting 

some of the performance metrics set forward in the OIG report. 

And then finally I would just like to say that you have been good 

about coming when we asked. You have been good about being 

straightforward with us in your answers. And for that, I am very 

appreciative. It just goes without saying everyone should know 

where their vehicle identification number is located on their car, 

lower left-hand of the windshield, driver’s side doorpost, and that 

vehicle number can be entered into your database, safercar.gov, 

safe with an R car.gov and find out if their vehicle has been subject 

to a recall. It is important information. Our subcommittee vice 

chair actually had two recalls on his vehicle and it was delineated 

that way. So, I encourage people to check the car of yourself, for 

your loved one, or your child, someone for whom you are responsible because it is the responsible thing to do. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established by Congress 

in 1970 to reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle accidents and to help make 

our nation’s roadways safer. The importance of the agency’s mission cannot be understated. With over 50 million vehicles recalled and a surge in traffic fatalities last 

year, it’s clear that the work of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

has very real and immediate societal and economic implications that affect the lives 

of virtually every American. 

The life-saving nature of NHTSA’s mission requires Congress and this Subcommittee in particular, to ensure absolute compliance with federal motor vehicle 

safety standards and processes. It also requires us to monitor the agency’s ability 

to keep pace with technology advancements in automotive systems that promise 

greater safety and mobility. As we’ve seen over the last few years, a failure to comply with safety standards or a misunderstanding of vehicle construction and design 

leads to delays in safety recalls, roadway fatalities and other preventable incidents. 

Based on our focus on auto safety, we included many reforms in the safety title 

of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act that was passed by Congress 

4 

and signed into law last year. Among those reforms included direction to NHTSA 

to implement 17 recommendations issued by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General following a comprehensive audit of the agency’s internal 

processes. Those recommendations are intended to improve NHTSA’s collection of 

vehicle safety data so that safety defects can be identified earlier and faulty cars 

can be removed from the road faster. The recommendations are also intended to 

help NHTSA keep pace with complex vehicle technology and rapidly advancing automotive systems. NHTSA has pledged to implement all 17 recommendations by June 

30th of this year. Following this hearing, I will send a request for a full breakdown 

of NHTSA’s progress toward implementing all 17 recommendations. 

The FAST Act contains a number of other measures intended to protect the driving public, including: improving NHTSA’s safety recall processes, increasing the 

availability of vehicle defect information to consumers, and keeping Congress apprised of the agency’s activities through the submission of an annual agenda. Each 

of these reforms work together to ensure that the agency remains focused and dedicated to its mission of saving lives, and that the cars American motorists are driving 

are safe. 

We also must ensure absolute compliance with motor vehicle safety standards and 

processes from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and new entrants into the automotive industry. Their role in advancing vehicle and roadway safety is just as critical to the goal of reducing traffic fatalities and increasing safety for all roadway 

travelers. To that end, the FAST Act contains provisions that strengthen remedy 

and repair obligations among automakers for vehicles under recall, and requires 

greater accountability from dealers and rental car companies to ensure that consumers driving away from those lots are in safe cars. 

In addition to the implementation of the FAST Act, there is much more to consider today. I look forward to discussing the status of the ongoing Takata recalls. 

In my home state of Texas there was another tragic fatality tied to the Takata airbags. NHTSA established a coordinated remedy program in 2015 to accelerate the 

replacement of defective Takata airbag inflators. Despite this program, the take 

rate, or percentage of people issued a recall that take their vehicle in for servicing, 

remains low. Is it time for NHTSA to do a Public Service campaign? I hope to hear 

about the coordinated remedy program and what additional action NHTSA is planning to solve this problem without further delay. 

I also look forward to discussing how the agency is working with automakers to 

protect vehicles from cyber threats, and how the agency is preparing for the industry’s future of crash-avoidance technology, vehicle-to-vehicle communications, autonomous cars, and beyond. We provided for a significant increase in resources for 

NHTSA in the FAST Act. 

With so much on the table, I hope to hear how NHTSA is maximizing the use 

of these resources. We provided a significant increase in the FAST Act. I have no 

doubt that NHTSA would like more funds. But funds are scarce and practically 

speaking I am not sure how much more funding Congress can realistically find. 

Administrator Rosekind, we welcome you to today’s hearing and I look forward 

to continuing to work with you to make vehicles and roadways safer for our nation’s 

motorists. 

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

5 minutes, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate 

that really important public service announcement. Seriously, we 

need to encourage our constituents and our American citizens to do 

just that. 

So, I look forward to hearing today how NHTSA is addressing 

ongoing and emerging safety challenges. Last summer, I know you 

Administrator Rosekind were here to testify on the Takata airbag 

recalls. The fallout from these defective airbags continues, as we 

know. Toyota announced the recall of another 60,000 vehicles this 

morning. So, these recalls keep on coming. 

5 

Just last week it was a 17-year-old in Texas when her airbag 

ruptured during a low-speed accident. And consumers are rightly 

concerned by the expanding class of vehicles impacted by this and 

other defects that drove 2015 to be a record-setting year for auto 

recalls. 

In 2015, traffic fatalities also increased by nine percent, reversing years of progress. And we just can’t have another year like 

2015. 

NHTSA has made progress in some important areas. For instance, under a new rule, heavy vehicles will be required to have 

electronic stability control. At the same time, I would like to see 

more progress in other areas, such as rear seat belt reminders. As 

we work to improve safety, strong enforceable standards are vital 

and that is why I am concerned about reliance on non-specific voluntary standards. 

The Proactive Safety Principles released earlier this year set out 

some broad areas for improvement and I agree that the industry 

and NHTSA should be more proactive in improving safety, examining early warning, reporting data, increasing recall participation 

and enhancing cybersecurity but I worry that progress in these 

areas will be limited if we don’t have enforceable standards. The 

lives of drivers, passengers, and those sharing the road are too important to rely on broad principles. 

We need to ramp up our approach to safety. I, along with ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, and several members of the subcommittee have introduced the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act and our bill would increase penalties for violations 

of safety standards, double NHTSA’s safety funding, ensure the 

public is properly notified of safety problems, and enable NHTSA 

to better respond when recalls are necessary. 

Last year, Congress considered a surface transportation bill. And 

while I am glad that we finally did pass a long-term transportation 

bill on safety, this bill, I think, was largely a missed opportunity 

but we can fix that. Bills like VSIA are what the subcommittee 

would be advancing if we want to make meaningful progress toward reducing vehicle deaths in addition to current safety challenges, NHTSA and the subcommittee must think about the next 

generation of vehicles, vehicle-to-vehicle technology and automated 

driving, have the potential to improve highway safety but there is 

a lot to test and figure out. 

And let me just say that consumer privacy and strong security 

need to be built in to these technologies from the get-go. And 

NHTSA needs to be provided sufficient resources to adequately review these technologies before mass deployment. 

That gets to a broader point. NHTSA needs adequate funding if 

we want adequate safety. We get the government that we pay for. 

And when our consumer watchdogs don’t have enough resources, 

we shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t keep pace with our safety needs. We need strong standards coupled with the resources to 

develop and enforce them. And without that, we aren’t going to 

make the progress that we need. 

I welcome our witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back, unless someone wants almost a minute. And 

I yield back. 

6 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the chair of the full committee, Mr. Upton, 

5 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Auto safety, it is a matter of life and death. Yes, it is. There are 

not a lot issues as important as keeping Americans safe on the 

road. Oversight of NHTSA is an essential part of this subcommittee’s work in protecting drivers across Michigan and across the 

country. And with over 250 million vehicles on the road transporting American families every day, today’s oversight hearing offers an important opportunity to evaluate NHTSA’s efforts in fulfilling its core mission of reducing traffic fatalities and making sure 

that our nation’s roadways and vehicles are indeed safe. 

In the past couple years we have seen NHTSA face many challenges. The agency has struggled to collect and take action on 

meaningful vehicle safety data and major recalls have come sometimes way too late and often with an unclear message on how to 

fix the problem. We are sadly all too familiar with the tragic consequence of safety failures. 

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, signed into law 

last year, included numerous reforms sponsored by members of this 

subcommittee to address some of those challenges and improve accountability, transparency, and efficiency at the agency. And I 

thank Chairman Burgess for his leadership in that effort, and I 

look forward to discussing the implementation progress of these reforms with the Administrator today. 

I would note that while the FAST Act represents a positive step 

forward in improving auto safety practices within NHTSA and 

across the auto industry at large, there is still more that can do, 

and should do. With low recall completion rates, the ongoing 

Takata recalls, and cybersecurity issues, other reforms and initiatives have to be considered to prevent further tragedies. One problem that we have seen repeatedly is an agency struggling to keep 

pace with next-generation automotive technologies. Being from the 

auto state, I understand how innovation and technological advances developed by the auto industry are introducing greater complexities into today’s vehicles. It is tougher. It is. 

However, it is NHTSA’s responsibility and obligation to stay on 

top of these developments and protect the driving public. Part of 

the problem is a lack of good testing and research facilities for connected and autonomous vehicles. Facilities like Michigan’s American Center for Mobility at Willow Run are critical to policymakers’ 

preparation and understanding of these advanced technologies, 

with faster consumer adoption. Until we have an accident-and-defect-free vehicle and roadway system, we can never put too much 

emphasis on safety. And you can’t have safety without testing. I 

want to explore how we can move forward with critical testing facilities like Willow Run which can secure America’s continued leadership in advanced automotive technologies but also protect American families on the road. 

7 

The automotive industry is vital to Michigan’s economy, as well 

as the country’s. It drives innovation, job creation, productivity, 

and economic advancement. Robust auto safety is fundamental to 

that progress. We have to continue to work together to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our nation’s motorists. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Auto safety—it’s a matter of life and death. There are not many issues as important as keeping Americans safe on the road. Oversight of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration is an essential part of this subcommittee’s work in 

protecting drivers across Michigan and the United States. With over 250 million vehicles on the road transporting American families everyday, today’s oversight hearing offers an important opportunity to evaluate NHTSA’s efforts in fulfilling its core 

mission of reducing traffic fatalities and making sure our nation’s roadways and vehicles are safe. 

In the past few years we’ve seen NHTSA face many challenges. The agency has 

struggled to collect and take action on meaningful vehicle safety data, and major 

recalls have come too late and often with an unclear message on how to fix the problem. We are sadly all too familiar with the tragic consequences of safety failures. 

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, signed into law last year, included numerous reforms sponsored by members of this subcommittee to address 

some of those challenges and improve accountability, transparency, and efficiency at 

the agency. I thank Chairman Burgess for his leadership in that effort, and I look 

forward to discussing the implementation progress of those reforms with Administrator Rosekind today. 

I should note that while the FAST Act represents a positive step forward in improving auto safety practices within NHTSA and across the auto industry at large, 

there is still much more that can, and should, be done. With low recall completion 

rates, the ongoing Takata recalls, and cyber security issues, other reforms and initiatives must be considered to prevent further tragedies. 

One problem we have seen repeatedly is an agency struggling to keep pace with 

next-generation automotive technologies. Being from the auto state, I understand 

how innovation and technological advancements developed by the auto industry are 

introducing greater complexities into today’s vehicles. However, it’s NHTSA’s responsibility and obligation to stay on top of those developments and protect the driving public. 

Part of the problem is a lack of good testing and research facilities for connected 

and autonomous vehicles. Facilities like Michigan’s American Center for Mobility at 

Willow Run are critical to policymakers’ preparation and understanding of these advanced technologies, and faster consumer adoption. Until we have an accident- anddefect-free vehicle and roadway system, we can never put too much emphasis on 

safety. And you can’t have safety without testing. I want to explore how we can 

move forward with critical testing facilities like Willow Run which will both secure 

America’s continued leadership in advanced automotive technologies but also protect 

American families on the road. 

The automotive industry is vital to Michigan’s economy, as well as the nation’s. 

It drives innovation, job creation, productivity, and economic advancement. Robust 

auto safety is fundamental to that progress. We must all continue working together 

to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our nation’s motorists. 

Mr. UPTON. And I yield the balance of my time to the vice-chair 

of the committee, Marsha Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we welcome 

you. We are delighted to have you here before us today. 

The chairman mentioned safety. It is of prime importance for us. 

We know that government can’t guarantee 100 percent safety but 

we know it is a goal we all should be striving toward and we appreciate your willingness to work with us on safer vehicles and a safer 

environment for those. 

8 

Chairman Burgess mentioned the Takata airbag hearing and we 

look forward to an update on that. We are continuing to look at 

that and to hear about this issue. 

The driverless cars, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, I am 

hearing more about that and the automatic breaking systems. We 

know that these are items that have the potential for saving lives 

but we want to make certain that those communications are secure, that they are not going to be able to be compromised by malevolent actors. We are concerned about the hackings into these vehicles. So, we want to visit those issues with you. 

Chairman Upton mentioned the importance of the auto industry 

to Michigan, likewise in Tennessee with GM and Nissan, and Toyota. My constituents are concerned about the decisions that you 

make, the actions that you take, and we welcome you to the committee again and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Pallone from New Jersey, 5 minutes for an opening statement, 

please. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman, for calling this hearing so 

that we can discuss NHTSA’s critical mission of making our roads 

safer and how Congress can best support that mission. It is an exciting time in the automotive world right now from vehicle-to-vehicle communication, to self-parking cars, to automatic braking. It 

seems we are in the midst of a major technological shift in the way 

we drive our cars. And while some may want to focus this hearing 

on the future of the automobile and I do want to hear that NHTSA 

and industry have the tools and skills necessary to deal with the 

ever-changing landscape, but we must address the deficiencies that 

already are plaguing this industry. 

Over the last several years, we have seen massive and highly 

publicized recalls for general motors ignition switches, Takata airbags, and Toyota unintended acceleration. Unfortunately, 2015 was 

another record-setting year for auto recalls which erodes the public 

trust and the underlying defects put people in danger. 

Just last night, we learned that yet another death had been 

linked to a faulty Takata airbag. And while some recalls may always occur, industry must take responsibility for its own failures 

and do more to prevent safety deficiencies from putting the public 

at risk. NHTSA also must stay ahead of the curve on safety and 

that starts with having the willingness and conviction to effect real 

change, both within NHTSA and throughout the industry. 

Last year was not only a record-setting year on recalls, we also, 

unfortunately, saw a rise in traffic fatalities. According to NHTSA 

projections, deaths increased 9.3 percent to 26,000 people in the 

first 9 months of 2015, compared with the same period in 2014. 

There was also a 30 percent rise in serious injuries in the first half 

of 2015, compared with the first half of 2014, up to nearly 2.3 million serious injuries. 

9 

In January, the Department of Transportation announced an 

agreement on safety principles between NHTSA and 18 major auto 

manufacturers. While the agreement covers broad areas of auto 

safety, it is severely lacking in meaningful details. It is nothing 

more than an agreement to try to agree in the future. And I also 

have serious reservations about the closed door process by which 

this agreement was drafted and finalized and it concerns me that 

it lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure that auto makers follow through on their commitments, as vague as they may be. 

In the wake of an auto emissions scandal, a climbing recall rate, 

and rising traffic fatalities, now is the time for greater accountability, greater transparency, and better communication between 

automakers and the agency charged with regulating them, as well 

as the public, not just a set of voluntary principles. 

Last year, Congress passed a transportation funding bill, the 

FAST Act. That legislation was a missed opportunity to address accountability, transparency, and communications. It also should 

have dealt with used car safety, speeding up the recall process, and 

eliminating regional recalls, among other things. 

The Vehicle Safety Improvement Act of 2015, a bill that Ranking 

Member Schakowsky mentioned and that I co-sponsored last year, 

would make those changes and a lot more. Our bill is a starting 

point to make sure that the millions of drivers and passengers on 

our roads are kept safe. 

This year is the 50th anniversary of the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the law that created NHTSA 

with its mission of reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The Auto Alliance has stated 

that fatalities, as a share of miles traveled, are down 80 percent 

since the law’s passage but we need to continue that legacy and not 

move backwards. We are on our way towards incredible advances 

in the automotive space but we need to ensure that consumers get 

there safely. 

And I look forward to continuing our discussion about how best 

to move forward on auto safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

And that concludes members’ opening statements. And the chair 

would like to remind members that, pursuant to committee rules, 

all members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

And again, thanks to all of our witnesses on both panels for 

being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. We will have two panels. Each panel of witnesses will 

have an opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by 

questions from the members. 

Once we conclude the questions on the first panel, there will be 

a brief, underscore brief, recess to set up for the second panel. 

And our witness panel for today’s panel includes, on the first 

panel, Dr. Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And Mr. Rosekind, again, thank 

you. We appreciate your being here today. We appreciate your willingness to be available to members of the subcommittee. We appreciate your making available coming to your facility and looking to 

10 

see what you and your fine folks do on a daily basis. You are now 

recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK ROSEKIND, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to update you on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s efforts to save lives, prevent crashes, and reduce the economic toll of fatalities on our roads. 

The last year was one of the most eventful in NHTSA’s 5-decade 

history and this year promises to be just as significant. 

In road safety, we face a large and tragically growing challenge. 

We lost 32,675 on American roads in 2014. And as you have all 

cited, our early estimates show that traffic fatalities appear to have 

grown up by 9 percent in 2015. I believe that the only acceptable 

goal is zero traffic deaths. Every American should be able to drive, 

ride, or walk to their destination safely every time. That is the goal 

that drives our work. 

Earlier this year, Secretary Foxx announced the President’s proposed $1.2 billion budget for NHTSA that includes important investment in NHTSA’s behavioral safety efforts and for accelerating 

safety technologies, such as vehicle automation. This funding will 

further support our efforts to build on the progress we have already 

made in revamping our defects investigations program. I strongly 

urge your support for the President’s budget proposal. 

I am going to begin with a topic that receives far less public attention than it is due—human behavior on the roads. A human 

choice or error is responsible for 94 percent of all crashes. Through 

decades of success, we know there are highly effective methods to 

combat these unsafe behaviors but we also know that simply doing 

more of the same will not get the job done. 

In a series of 1-day traffic safety summits across the country this 

year, we challenge stakeholders to develop new ideas and innovative approaches to make our roads safer. Those efforts will continue 

as we develop short- and long-term strategies to eliminate traffic 

fatalities. NHTSA is also continuing to act on multiple fronts to 

raise the level of safety in the vehicles that are already on our 

roads. Through regulation, NHTSA has issued a final rule requiring electronic stability control on heavy vehicles and proposed rules 

to protect consumers from unsafe novelty motorcycle helmets and 

to upgrade rear impact guards on trucks and trailers. We are also 

working on a rule to require the installation of speed limiters on 

heavy vehicles and a rule on vehicle-to-vehicle communications, a 

technology that could prevent tens of thousands of crashes every 

year. 

NHTSA is also leading on vehicle safety beyond the regulatory 

process. Last month, we joined auto manufacturers to announce a 

historic commitment to put automatic emergency braking in more 

than 99 percent of all new cars by 2022. This agreement will make 

this technology standard 3 years faster than if the agency had tried 

to achieve the same goal only through the regulatory process, preventing thousands of crashes and saving lives. 

11 

Our proposed update to the 5 star safety ratings program will 

put more information about vehicle safety in the hands of car buyers. The updates add tougher crash tests, will for the first time 

rate vehicles on crash avoidance and will rate vehicles in how well 

they prevent and mitigate the harm of pedestrian impacts. 

NHTSA is leaning forward on autonomous vehicle technology. 

This year, we will offer manufacturer operational deployment guidance that outlines how autonomous vehicles should perform on the 

roads. We will work with partners to provide model state policy 

and we will identify new tools and authorities that NHTSA may 

need so that we can be sure we meet our goal of encouraging safe 

innovation. 

While we look to the future, we must also maintain our focus on 

safety today. In 2015, NHTSA initiated a record-setting nearly 900 

recall campaigns affecting about 51 million vehicles and we also 

imposed record-setting penalties. 

NHTSA has launched an unprecedented effort to coordinate and 

accelerate the Takata recalls currently totaling 28.8 million airbag 

inflators. Our coordinated remedy program issued to Takata and 

the affected automakers accelerated the recall remedy process by 

2 years or more. This is, perhaps, the most aggressive use of the 

agency’s enforcement authority in its history. 

While identifying defects and recalling vehicles is an important 

safety mission, we would prefer to avoid the problems in the first 

place. In January, Secretary Foxx announced an historic agreement 

with 18 auto manufacturers on a series of concrete commitments 

to safety, including targeting 100 percent remedy completion rates. 

This agreement could change the safety conversation from reactive 

to proactive, helping us catch issues sooner or prevent them from 

happening at all. 

We were recently, and you have all mentioned this, tragically reminded just how urgent this work is. Two weeks ago today, a 17- 

year-old driver lost her life after the Takata airbag inflator in her 

car ruptured after a crash near Houston. The local sheriff said that 

if it weren’t for the rupture, she would have been able to walk 

away from that crash. The inflator in her vehicle had already been 

recalled but the repair had not been completed. We all play a role 

in making sure another tragedy like this just doesn’t happen again. 

We are going to hear NHTSA talk a lot in the next year about 

proactive safety, about the need for all of us with a role in protecting the public to make safety our highest priority. Doing so will 

require new ways of thinking for NHTSA, for automakers and suppliers, for dealers, for safety advocates, and for the public. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I am pleased to answer your questions. 

[The statement by Mr. Rosekind follows:] 

12 


20613.001
13 


20613.002
14 


20613.003
15 


20613.004
16 


20613.005
17 


20613.006
18 


20613.007
19 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman for the testimony. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Again, I appreciate your being here today. 

Can you tell us, since this last incident was so recent, and I don’t 

know that I have seen any sort of official write-up of what occurred, but the airbag unit in question was under recall but what 

was the difficulty in getting the recall information to the end user? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Specific to that case, that was a 2011 recall actually for a different manufacturing defect. The manufacturer reported sending at least six notices to the family. The family reports 

not receiving any of them and so that is being investigated right 

now. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, it certainly seems like we have uncovered a 

weak spot in what should be the vehicle notification and the user 

getting back to get the problem taken care of. 

Is this a problem because this was a second or third owner or 

was this the original owner of the car? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We believe it was a used vehicle. So, multiple 

owners of the vehicle. And you have hit on it, which is as much 

as currently being done to notify people, it is not enough. And so 

we have been working with the automakers, we have had our own 

programs. We have just established with the independent monitor 

19 new strategies, more robust ones for the automakers in Takata 

to go after informing people that they are available. 

We have our own, about a dozen activities that are going on with 

NHTSA, including a new national campaign, safe cars save lives, 

many different things. In spite of those, what we know is it has not 

been enough. 

I do want to thank you because every time you have been so good 

about mentioning safercar.gov. And I will just say in the last fatality, we saw a spike from 50,000 to 175,000 checks of peoples’ VIN 

numbers. So, we know that every time we make people aware, they 

pay attention and that has the opportunity to save more lives. I 

thank you. You have been so good about doing that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me ask you a question, because I think 

it was actually in this recently passed highway bill that we did 

about a pilot program for state notification to consumers. In the 

State of Texas every year I have got to take my car somewhere and 

the guy checks the turn signal. And I am happy to comply with it 

because then I can drive my car for another year without getting 

a traffic ticket. Is there any way to add the compliance with recalls 

at the state level as part of the armamentarium of things that they 

check, along with pollution and turn signals and tire wear? Is it 

possible to add this information as well? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes and thank you for the FAST Act because this 

is just one example of one of the elements that could help promote 

better recalls. What you are identifying is a pilot program. Right 

now there is no procedure. There is no technology or funding, basically, to figure out how to go and do this. When you get your car 

registered, there is no way to notify people. 

So, what is great about the pilot program, up to six states can 

work with us to figure out what the procedures need to be, what 

technology needs to be in place, and basically how the procedures 

are going to go to make sure that that happens correctly. 

20 

And just to give you a feel, our VIN lookup is for consumers, one 

person at a time. Here, we have already started interacting with 

states and with the DMVs. You are looking at hundreds of thousands of look ups potentially daily to get that work done. We have 

to figure out how to do it. It could be a great touch point to inform 

people. 

Mr. BURGESS. Somehow, when you make it important to people, 

it can involve money and, instead of making it punitive, if there 

was a proactive way, and this of course is probably a question I 

need to ask the manufacturers, actually an incentive program to 

comply with a vehicle safety recall if one has been identified. And 

I could encourage, if there are any manufacturers who are listening 

today to consider that approach as well. 

I have got to ask you this because a little known fact, because 

I am also chair of the motorcycle caucus and you mentioned novelty 

motorcycle helmet problems. Can you tell me what the problem is 

there? I was not aware of that. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. There is a group of manufacturers that put out 

a novelty helmet that does not meet the standard. And so basically, 

people put the helmet on thinking that they are protecting themselves and it does not. 

Mr. BURGESS. And these are sold as motorcycle helmets? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Absolutely. And so if you didn’t know what you 

were buying and you just thought it looked different and cool, 

thinking you were getting the same protection, you would not be. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is there a requirement that a motorcycle helmet 

be placard? Would there be any way for a consumer to know this 

is a NHTSA-approved, or a safety-approved device they have purchased? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And there is a DOT label so that you would know 

that it is correct. But these are manufactured and put out there in 

certain places and so we are acting to try and take care of that. 

Mr. BURGESS. But no label would be affixed to those. It is not 

that there is a counterfeit label, there is no label. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. It is different, depending on how people are producing them. Most often, there is no label. And if people don’t know 

that they should be looking for that, they just think it is a helmet 

that probably should be protecting them. 

Mr. BURGESS. All right. Well, full-service subcommittee, I learned 

something new today and I hope our motorcycle public is paying attention and will only buy official helmets. 

I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, 5 minutes 

for questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Dr. 

Rosekind. 

The massive ongoing recalls of Takata airbags have remained a 

huge and complicated problem. And as was mentioned just yesterday, NHTSA announced that 85 million more Takata airbags could 

be recalled, unless Takata can prove that they are safe. 

Dr. Rosekind, questions about Takata inflators are endless. For 

example, consumers want to know how we can get accurate information to better understand which inflators are going into what 

cars. And recently, NHTSA stated that if a car company cannot 

meet the requirement to acquire a sufficient supply of remedy 

21 

parts, the company should continue its ‘‘like for like’’ replacing 

older defective airbags with newer but identical bags. 

So, my questions are these. Does that mean that the company 

will be putting a potentially defective airbag into a car with the 

hope that it is better just because it is newer? And is the consumer 

told this important information at the time that the airbag is replaced? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, I need to begin by making sure everybody understand since their inception, 42,000 lives have been saved by airbags. That is the difficulty of this situation. A piece of safety equipment is putting people at risk. 

So, what is now known, based on testing, is there are at least 

five different factors that create the risk about a rupture that has 

to do with temperature, moisture, time, the driver versus passenger side, and whether it has desiccant or not, which is a moisture-absorbing additive that can be placed in there. 

So, one of the issues that you are talking about is that, at this 

point, we are only seeing ruptures at 7 1⁄2 years. And that is with 

all the other risk factors involved as well. 

So, what you are talking about is right now with supplies, there 

are a certain number that are being replaced that have at least a 

7 1⁄2 year timespan available for that safety to protect people in the 

vehicle. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, is the consumer promised a later date to 

come in and get a permanent remedy? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Absolutely. And you are hitting, in fact, when we 

announced this recall, the hardest part, frankly, is you have hit on 

one of the most difficult things, is you are talking about people potentially having to come twice. Because what you are describing is 

an interim remedy that will provide more safety but they are going 

to have to come back for a second time. This is why we have emphasized the 100 percent because you don’t want people to get that 

first one and think they are done. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. There are news reports that indicate 

that companies other than Takata are making replacement airbags. 

And are those suppliers making the inflators to the old specifications or the new ones? And are these companies required to make 

the inflators without ammonium nitrate? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. There are three other manufacturers, Autoliv, 

Daicel, and TRW. They now produce about 70 percent of the inflators that are being currently produced for replacement. None of 

them use ammonium nitrate. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. None of them have had any safety problems identified. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And how does a consumer know if her car’s replacement airbag is a replica of the airbag that it was made to replace and similarly, how does the consumer know whether the new 

airbag she got in the last 2 years needs to be replaced? And finally, 

how does she know whether the new one contains ammonium nitrate-based propellants? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. The simplest thing would be to go to safercar.gov, 

do the VIN lookup, see whether or not your vehicle is under a recall. If you go in and a dealer tells you that it is the interim remVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
22 

edy, then you would know that you are going to have to be called 

back again for that second fix. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Safercar.gov. 

I am troubled by the report that some auto manufacturers may 

still be selling new vehicles with potentially defective Takata inflators. What is NHTSA doing to ensure that all new cars are free of 

these airbags? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Well, it would be illegal to sell a known defect in 

a new car. So, if you are aware of anything, let us know because 

that is something we would go and investigate. So, there should be 

no vehicles. Again, there are some that are getting like for like. 

Right now the recalls, I think, go back to 2014 but all those are 

being tracked because of that 7 1⁄2 year rupture timeline. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you are unaware of any reports that some 

auto manufacturers are doing that. Is that what you were saying? 

You said I should inform you but have you heard that as well? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No, you have not. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Unless it is something we know about, because, 

again, there are some that haven’t been recalled because of the 

time. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. But otherwise, we are not aware of any. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentlelady. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Kinzinger, 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And sir, thank you for being here and thank you for serving the 

country in your capacity. 

Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing for us to continue our 

committee’s oversight of NHTSA and the review of related safety 

issues within the automotive industry. 

I would especially like to thank the chairman and committee for 

their support and work to include my amendment in the FAST Act. 

I believe it takes an important step forward to improve vehicle 

safety by requiring automakers to provide more information about 

defective components or parts involved in safety recalls. Sharing 

defective part numbers and other identifiable information with recyclers will improve safety and aid NHTSA in its goal to improve 

recall completion rates. 

Sir, Section 24(11)(6) of the FAST Act requires automakers to 

furnish additional information in their 575 reports, such as the 

name of the component, a description of the component and the 

part number. Do you have any information what is the status of 

implementation of this section? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes, an important component, if you will, of that 

Act. And so name, description, and part number already underway 

to include that according to what is in the FAST Act. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK and do you know, does it require a rulemaking? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes. 

23 

Mr. KINZINGER. All right. And as NHTSA reached out to stakeholders, such as the Automotive Recyclers Association for technical 

assistance and input on implementing this section? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And they have been very forthcoming. They have 

already come to meet with us to help us be more explicit about 

what needs to get done. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Good. And you feel like that is a good relationship? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Very productive interactions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK, great. Has any information been received 

from the OEMs under this section of the new law? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Any? 

Mr. KINZINGER. Any new information? Any information been received from them under this? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We are still in the produce it phase. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. But we will interact with them as well to make 

sure that what we produce is something they can fulfill. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And do you have any idea like kind of the 

timeline on this right now? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I mean tell you for sure we will meet the FAST 

Act requirement. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And then how will the information supplied 

through this section of the law be available to the public or the 

stakeholders? I mean ideally, are you going to have it like a static 

PDF form, electronic database? Is there anything that you foresee? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Well and that is the part that is trying to be figured out. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And that is not just with the recyclers. But again, 

the form that we asked the OEMs to provide that information obviously can facilitate how we can make that information available. 

That is the part that is being worked on now. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK, good. Well, I appreciate you all working on 

it. My office will continue to ensure that everything is going correctly and appreciate your service. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have for this witness. I appreciate it. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentleman. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Clarke from New York, 5 minutes. Your 

questions, please. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member. 

Thank you, Dr. Rosekind for coming in today. Am I pronouncing 

your name correctly? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Rosekind. 

Ms. CLARKE. Rosekind. OK. That was the Brooklyn pronunciation. 

I think it is safe to assume that cars are going to continue to 

come equipped with more technological features going forward. 

Connections exist through popular telematic systems, such as 

OnStar and built-in entertainment and navigation systems. But as 

we have heard in numerous hearings in this subcommittee, covering different aspects of the internet of things, if a product can 

24 

connect to the internet, that product is going to be a target for 

hackers. 

Dr. Rosekind, what is NHTSA doing to ensure that the growing 

number of connected features in cars don’t become new entry 

points for hackers? What are the consequences for automakers that 

do not have robust cybersecurity? And does NHTSA have plans to 

pursue a rulemaking on cybersecurity? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, let me start with the consequences. Last July, 

there was a highly visible hack of a Jeep, which was at least 

planned. So, there has been no malicious hack of any vehicle yet. 

But we highlighted that it is no longer a concept. It is real. And 

I point that out because without any change in our authorities, et 

cetera, within days a defect was called and a recall was underway. 

So, we are going to act aggressively and get on those when possible. 

But you are bringing up an issue which is the more connected 

everything is, the more cybersecurity becomes critical. NHTSA has 

actually been on this since 2012, where we created an office specifically focused on it. This is my chance to thank everybody for their 

support in the FAST Act. 

We have about seven engineers on this, four in Washington, 

three in Ohio. The FAST Act is going to let us add up to 20 new 

engineers to deal with this and they are looking at a broad range 

from how you protect things to one of our recent focus on research 

is looking specifically at what are the data elements you would actually have to collect to see that hacking attempts were ongoing. 

And so there is a very active research program that is going on, 

as well as a lot of others. 

We have published a cybersecurity piece on our policy. We are 

developing some new program elements. January, we held a meeting with over 300 folks coming together, manufacturers, as well as 

independent researchers to get to look at these sorts of things. 

Specifically to your question, this is an area where we need to 

figure out to how to sort of cut that middle line, which is we talk 

about nimble and flexible for cybersecurity. If you come out with 

a rule today, by tomorrow, it could be out of date. And yet at the 

same time, you need some best practices and potentially rules to 

establish certain kinds of hard protections and things. So, I think 

this is an area that you are going to have see a variety of different 

techniques used to get the full kind of protection the American 

public is going to expect. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. As you refer to the Jeep experiment with 

the two researchers, Dr. Rosekind, when it comes to cars, cybersecurity isn’t about data. It can really be about safety issues, can’t 

it? A joint bulletin that NHTSA released with the FBI a month ago 

said that consumers should take appropriate steps to minimize risk 

with respect to hacking. Can you explain what some of those steps 

might be? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes, and thank you because you are right, our 

focus is primarily on the safety. And that hack that was done on 

the Jeep last July specifically dealt with control systems of the vehicle and that is where the safety concern comes. 

And yes, thanks for acknowledging the collaboration with the 

FBI and putting that out. And that had a lot of straightforward 

25 

things that all of us can do, which is just be careful about what 

you hook up to your entertainment systems. So that Jeep hack actually went through their entertainment system, for example. 

And I think all of us basically can think about all the things that 

we attach to our vehicles, whether you are nowadays a huge number connected to the web, if you are out there searching, you have 

a chance not just for a virus come and be difficult for you but literally to get into your systems. 

So, there is a nice list of things in that press release that was 

put out, basically cautioning people. If you think about it, you 

would want to do the same things you would do for your home computer to protect yourself, to think about your car in the same way. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentlelady. 

The chair recognizes gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks, 5 

minutes for questions, please. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I consider my district actually the auto auction capital of the 

United States. Car Auction Services, which is headquartered in my 

district is the second largest auto auction company in North America, selling over four million vehicles a year, employs 14,000 people 

in all 50 states. And I also, in north of Indianapolis, in Carmel, 

have NextGear Capital, just expanding their headquarters in Carmel. And I have been to their facility where they serve over 20,000 

auto dealers who depend on them for $13 billion in capital to fund 

their auction purchases. 

They tell me they, of course, want to help protect people by ensuring that they know that their customers know of car defects before they buy. But right now, safercar.gov only allows customers to 

search VIN numbers one at a time to check for recalls. With over 

9 million cars sold at auction every year, auto auctions simply don’t 

have the manpower or the resources to tediously input every single 

number. And so by allowing auto auctions to run every car in their 

lot for recall notices in one query, the consumer would be more 

equipped to make better decisions, higher successful recall rates 

and, ultimately fewer accidents on the road. 

And, obviously, we have been talking about the FAST Act passed 

last year and it studied the feasibility of searching multiple VIN 

numbers at the same time and the feasibility of making the search 

mechanism for the event. Can you give me an update on the 

progress you have made and NHTSA’s made with respect to the 

search of multiple numbers at once and what hurdles do you still 

face? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And actually, you have just described them, 

which is the NHTSA lookup is a tool for consumers. And we don’t 

even actually maintain a database. That is really just tapping the 

auto manufacturers who control their VIN databases. 

So, we know there is a great need and interest in having what 

is called batch or bulk lookups so that you could do it as a group. 

And the auction houses, new dealerships, all kinds of folks would 

really benefit by that. So, we have met with folks and I think the 

biggest thing that we are seeing is the technology challenge, as you 

26 

are talking about, the creation of some mechanism. As I just said 

we don’t even keep the database, we go to the manufacturers. How 

would you create a mechanism, basically, technologically so you 

could have those bulk requests going to multiple manufacturers in 

a very short time frame and providing that bulk answer, basically, 

to whomever the requestor is. 

I think at most, at this point, is the technology challenge and, 

clearly, how it would get funded is unclear as well. Everybody is 

sort of pointing to that. 

There are three commercial entities that exist that do that. 

Carfax is one of them. I can get you the other two, if you would 

like. 

And so we are looking. We met in July, again, frankly, to talk 

about what would happen. I think the technology is the biggest 

piece right now because no one quite has an answer of how to pull 

that off. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But isn’t part of our challenge that we have so 

many people who do purchase vehicles that are moving through the 

auto auctions? And so consumers, it is very, very difficult for them 

to know if they are getting one of these cars that has one of these 

problems. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Absolutely, and just two things. One is when I 

say there is a technological challenge, that doesn’t mean we aren’t 

off of it. It actually means that we are trying to be more aggressive 

to figure out how could you fix that issue. And you have hit on another issue, which the FAST Act addressed for rental cars. But in 

used cars, people can still sell those without having the recall remedied. So, that is one of the ways to get to those. 

And that is why I say we met in July and we are still meeting 

with them to see if we can figure out what the technological solution could be. 

Mrs. BROOKS. OK. I certainly hope that some of your engineers 

working on cyber issues, may be with all of that brainpower of 

those engineers, maybe can also be tasked to have that as a topic. 

I want to turn to a different topic right now. Last year or this 

past month, rather, a Griffith High School boys basketball team 

was traveling to a semi-state championship. A driver sideswiped 

their bus and the bus flipped and overturned, as they were on the 

way to their semi-state game. None of the children were seriously 

injured. However, it reminds us about the importance of getting 

seatbelts on school buses. 

And last September, you announced a series of steps designed to 

move the nation toward providing more seatbelts to students on 

school buses. Can you please tell us about the research projects, 

the data collection, stakeholder outreach, what is going on with respect to this project? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I can’t thank you enough for raising that question. There are so many headlines that people want to talk about. 

That is one for 4 decades there has been debate out putting seatbelts on school buses. And yes, it is a clear departure for NHTSA 

to come out and basically say three-point belts would add—the big 

yellow bus is the safest way to get to and from. Can you make it 

safer? Absolutely. So, we have already had a 1-day meeting to talk 

about how to make that happen. We have identified the fact that 

27 

it is not just about seatbelts on the bus, it is around the bus. So, 

we are looking at everything from the red lights on the arms to 

guards that help people pass in front. 

We are looking at all those different things, including our most 

recent meeting about a month ago, where we pulled the six states 

that do have laws related to seatbelts in to figure out what they 

are doing and how we could helpfully try and scale that to the rest 

of the country. 

So, we are on that trying to figure out anything we can do to 

support three-point seatbelts on school buses. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you for your service. My time is up. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for 

questions, please. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As others have mentioned today, in January DOT and 18 automakers reached an agreement known as the Proactive Safety Principles and I am glad to see auto manufacturers and DOT try to 

work proactively on vehicle safety. But frankly, I have doubts 

about these principles. 

The principles are simply a promise to try to work together in 

the future. There is no substance. And even if there were, there is 

no enforcement to ensure that the automakers keep their commitments. So, I wanted to ask you, Dr. Rosekind, can you assure me 

that these principles are meaningful in some way, that these principles are more than a PR stunt to shift the focus away from the 

major safety crisis of the past few years? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And you are absolutely correct, it is not a regulation and they are not enforceable. And I can tell you in April we 

had a meeting for the very first time to discuss with the automakers 100 percent recall completion rate as a target. 

That is now included in that Proactive Principle. Never before 

has—everyone has always talked about let’s get 75 percent because 

that is the average. We are now talking about 100 percent should 

be that target. That is in there. Can everybody do more? Absolutely, but now we have a new target that is already in there. 

I think the automatic emergency braking that we see happen is 

another proactive one and in the cybersecurity area, Chrysler actually, in May, is having their own 2-day just industry meeting to 

focus on things. That wasn’t intended to be a regulation. It wasn’t 

intended for enforcement. We are going to use all the enforcement 

and regulatory authority we have. We are not giving anything up. 

My concern is the 32,675 and that we are looking at a nine percent increase this year. And we all know if we keep doing the same 

thing, we cannot expect a different outcome. 

So, we will continue doing everything we know that works. We 

will figure out ways to do it better but NHTSA is looking for every 

other tool that we can find that could help save a life. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. But in addition, and I appreciate that because I think that even though you are admitting that there is no 

28 

enforcement mechanisms per se, that you are going to try to use 

other measure that you have to do that. 

In addition to the lack of enforcement, though, I also have reservations about the closed door process that NHTSA has been engaging with recently. With regard to the Proactive Safety Principles, were any auto safety advocates directly involved in crafting 

the principles? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That process started on December first when Secretary Foxx called all the COs in because of all the recall and safety problems going on in the industry. It was clearly beyond just 

breaking issues and issue of the safety culture in the industry. He 

called them in and said we need to do something different. And 6 

weeks later, that agreement emerged among them, basically, to 

come up with these principles in those four areas. So, that started 

with a meeting with the automakers. Six weeks later, through the 

holidays, frankly, is when it actually came together. So, there was, 

again, there was not a public process. That was come in, what are 

you going to change? And that was agreement that came together. 

And I will say it again. It is not intended to be a regulation. It 

is not intended to be enforcement but everybody is watching and 

we already have some concrete things like that agreement looking 

to target 100 percent completion. Activity is already going on. Cybersecurity already being advanced. We have a safety meeting coming up, next week, basically, where we are going to be looking at 

how to take aviation lessons learned and apply them to the auto 

industry. So, in that agreement, it talks about anonymous sharing 

of safety data. That meeting to start that process is actually happening next Friday. They are concrete actions and we are watching. 

Mr. PALLONE. So, I mean there weren’t any auto safety advocates 

directly involved. But I mean how are you going to try to get them 

involved? What are you going to do? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That agreement is public. It is out there. The activities, basically, are aware. So, anybody can have input into what 

is going on. And that, again, was an agreement of the manufacturers to proactively move things forward. 

Mr. PALLONE. So, I mean there wasn’t any public comment period for the Proactive Safety Principles. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. It was not a regulation. It is not intended to be 

enforced. 

Mr. PALLONE. No, I understand. I mean I appreciate your honesty about lack of enforcement, lack of involvement of the auto 

safety advocates. Lack of a comment period. I mean I don’t think 

that is good but I appreciate your honesty. 

But how are we going to—we don’t want to have similar agreements like this in the future. I mean I think it is important to involve the public safety advocates. It is important to have public 

comments, a public comment period prior to finalization. So, can 

you make some commitment to us that in the future you will try 

to do that or what can you tell us that makes me feel a little better 

about the lack of all this? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Well, NHTSA is going to look for all the tools that 

are available. And that means we are going to have as much interaction with a full range of safety advocates for all the activities 

29 

that are going on. And, frankly, some of the process have clear elements where notice in comment for rulemaking, there are opportunities for everybody to get involved in the public docket, et cetera. 

There are always going to be other activities that go on that certain 

groups aren’t going to be involved in. 

Mr. PALLONE. I guess my concern—I know that my time has run 

out, Mr. Chairman—is that these voluntary good practices on the 

part of business are certainly something we hope for but the rulemaking process exists for a reason and mandatory safety standards 

have prevented more than 600,000 deaths since the 1960s. 

So, I don’t want the agency moving away from mandatory standards. That is my concern. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And that is why I can state absolutely emphatically that we will continue to regulate and enforce as we need to 

and we are looking at and we want to expand and add to our tool 

set that we can try and see progress on safety. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, 

5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Administrator Rosekind for testifying. 

It is my understanding that what is sometimes called the One 

Nation Program, referring to fuel economy regulations was intended to coordinate or harmonize various federal, state, and state 

regulations as much as possible. Since there are effectively three 

separate sets of regulations for EPA, NHTSA and state regulation, 

it has come to my attention that differences between even the federal programs make compliance more difficult. 

First, do you agree that the development of the One Nation Program was to provide consistency and certainly for automakers? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes, among those three groups that you highlighted, NHTSA, EPA and especially the California Air Resource 

Board. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Are you aware of the differences between programs that affects stringency and possible compliance? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Are there specific ones? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well one, if I am not mistaken, EPA credits can 

have a useable life of up to 10 years versus NHTSA credits have 

an up to 5 year of life. So, because of that difference, then somebody could be—an EPA credit could be compliant with EPA but not 

compliant with NHTSA. Is that a conflict? 

Do you see that or is that something you are working through? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Two things. One is I would say that if there is 

a specific instance that somebody is sort of questioning where that 

inconsistency is, I would love to see that so we can see what is actually going on there. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. But the other thing, to the question about consistency more generally is there is a mid-term review that is coming 

up, where we will be putting out a technical assessment report so 

that we can basically take a look at how that is doing and a draft 

30 

report will come out for exactly those kinds of comments that people can address. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. That was a specific instance. Somebody could 

come to me and say that they have been written up for being compliant with one or the other but they look at the standard and say 

they were—— 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Importantly, in that mid-term review, there will 

be a draft that everybody can comment. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, we will follow-up specific on that, then. 

So, shifting to recalls and focusing on the millions of motorists 

and occupants who are driving or riding in vehicles under open recall, and what is the status of the new recall media campaign you 

announced last September? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, there have actually been a variety of activities 

going on. That one is Safe Cars Save Lives and we are doing media 

buys. And NHTSA is the agency that has Click It or Ticket; Drive 

Sober or Get Pulled Over; You Drive, You Text, You Pay. We have 

these national campaigns we do. This is a new one focused specifically on recalls. 

The other two things I will just mention quickly are, besides our 

activities going on, the automobile associations are doing research 

and looking at other mechanisms, things like contacting the insurance companies so that when you not just register your card but 

when you touch your insurance company, another touch point. And 

then the independent monitor with us is also working with Takata 

and all the manufacturers affected. As part of the consent order, 

they are required to give us their outreach plan. And so that way, 

we can actually look at it. And we have come up with almost 20 

new robust strategies for them to pursue, along with about a dozen 

things that we already have underway. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Takata, obviously, is a case, the recall obviously is 

different but there are a lot of recalls for a lot of different reasons. 

Do you look at recall fatigue? Like your door handle needs to be 

readjusted or I mean, I have heard—I have never seen one something specific but people say if there is a typo in an owner’s manual, you get a recall notice on that. I haven’t personally seen that 

one so I can’t say. But I do see recalls that come through cars that 

I have and I say I will get around to that one because it is a screw 

in the chair seat or something like that versus, obviously, Takata, 

that is safety. 

Is there a way you try to or are concerned about people continuing getting recalls and then all of a sudden one is more serious 

than others and I guess recall fatigue? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Absolutely and I think that has been the problems with the headlines is people get so many notices, potentially, 

when you are looking at, I mentioned a number, but last year in 

2015, it was 900. The year before we are talking about 51 million 

vehicles being affected. 

And so yes, consumers, just knowing that that is something they 

need to pay attention to is a challenge. And then if you are getting 

multiple ones for different cars, that is a real problem. That is why 

we are trying to come up with new strategies, new approaches. 

While there is a lot of activity going on, I think the tragedy from 

a couple of weeks ago shows we have got to do more. 

31 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Absolutely. And then I only have 19 seconds but 

you said publicly and your staff has said that auto safety technologies may have environmental benefits that would reduce greenhouse gases. Can you give a couple of examples of that in 8 seconds? Sorry. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Engines that are more efficient. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 

5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sir, thank you for being here. It is very impressive, your command and knowledge of NHTSA. I think the whole time you have 

been there I haven’t seen you even look back at anybody behind 

you or even look at a note. So, I will commend you for that. I am 

not capable of doing that. 

I just want to run a little bit on the recalls. Unfortunately, we 

heard of the young lady that lost her life and that has been 

brought up and talked about. There were some questions about 

how the vehicle is registered. I get that, too. But I have, on multiple vehicles, over time, and I still get recalls from vehicles that 

I owned years ago. Is there not—unless I am mistaken, I thought 

the DMVs were supposed to notify or help notify the individuals 

when they are registered with them of recalls. But is the DMVs 

communicating with the manufacturers to let them know that the 

vehicles change hands, some way to get those notifications farther 

out there? Because what we are having is obviously it is not being 

effective. And I understand the responsibility of the driver but, at 

the same time, when you a buy a vehicle or used, you assume everything is perfect on it. You are not looking for recalls. If you are 

looking for recalls, you would have never purchased the vehicle. 

So, is there communication with the state, with the manufacturer, with the DMVs? What is that communication like? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. There should be but you have just hit on, besides 

things like recall fatigue, you are hitting on another issue, which 

is where in the communication did that break down. Because one 

of the concerns you are just raising is when there is a multiple 

buyer, you have the used car has been bought by multiple buyers 

over time, there is the assumption that somehow that transition of 

ownership has been taken care of, that all the appropriate information has been passed on. That is not always tracked. And so now 

you are looking at the whole system, DMV, the manufacturer, 

where the notices go out, even if they have updated information on 

the owner and make sure that they are sending it to the right address where you actually live. 

So, you have just hit on another issue that we are trying to unravel, to figure out where all those touch points could be. That is 

why there is the interest in the DMV pilot. Is that something if you 

are going to register the car we could get you again? 

And I would actually like to use you in ad because you have got 

it. If you buy a new car, a used car, a rental car, your assumption 

is that it has no outstanding recalls. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. But that is not the case. 

32 

Mr. MULLIN. And the other breakdown, too, you can’t—I have a 

fleet of vehicles and several mechanics that work for us in our companies. And you can’t work on a car anymore without plugging it 

into a computer. It would seem that there would be a way for a 

notification to come up on the vehicle and everything that is connected the way that it is that there is a recall, regardless if the 

manufacturer is working on it at a certified GM mechanic or the 

mechanic down the road. You would think that would be a way for 

it to communicate because everybody has got to take their vehicles 

in and get the oils changed. Very few people are changing their oil 

now in their driveway. That might be a way. 

And I am open to discussing it further with you of maybe some 

simple ways that we might be able to come up with some more 

communication, more ways for just the average consumer to be 

able to get the technology or the information that they need. 

I want to go back to Mrs. Brooks and bring up the school bus 

issue. I have five kids that go to public school from 12 to 5 years 

of age. They are going to be there for a while. And they are on a 

school bus all the time. The question is, though, I don’t think any 

school is arguing the fact they want to put seatbelts in the school 

buses. It is that they can’t afford it. 

So, is NHTSA looking at a program to help the schools? Because 

if we just mandate it for the schools to do it, schools are having 

issues with revenue left and right. We continuously put unfunded 

mandates on the school systems and you are not going to find a 

teacher, a superintendent, or someone elected to the school board 

that is going to argue the point that they don’t want seatbelts in 

the school buses. But we have got to have some type of program 

to incentify them to be able to do it and funding that goes along 

with it. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And we are looking at all those possibilities. And 

to your point, we don’t want school districts to make the choice to 

not provide that safe school bus because of their concern about the 

seat belts. That is, again, one of those fine lines we have to tread. 

That is why we came out with a policy but without the mandate 

at this point, trying to figure out how other states and school systems have done it and we have met folks where they didn’t have 

the funds but they made a decision in the district to only order new 

buses with three-point belts. They found a way to pull it off. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, you can order new buses that way. It is the 

old buses. And we know how expensive the new buses are. How 

long is it going to take to get the old buses off the roads? You are 

talking about years at that point. 

I am out of time. Sir, thank you for being here. I really do appreciate it. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentleman. 

The chair would recognize Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois for a redirect. 

The chair will recognize himself for the opportunity for redirection to the Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

There is something that has come up relatively recently that I 

hear on car shows on Saturday morning and that is the issue of 

33 

the seat back integrity. We put our children in car seats. We put 

them in the rear seat. But in some vehicle crashes the seat integrity of the seat back is what fails putting the adult then in the 

compartment with the child and the child is then injured. Is this 

something that you are looking into currently? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes and fortunately, severe rear impacts, severe, 

are fairly rare. And then when someone is specifically injured, trying to determine was it specifically the seat back strength is more 

rare. Which just means trying to get the data to figure out the safety benefit and other benefit determinations, these things can be 

challenging. But we are looking at from a potential regulatory 

standpoint and from a research standpoint. So, even if we don’t 

have the real world data, we are looking at actually a new test 

dummy that would allow us to collect better data to make that 

kind of determination, which we would have to do to come out with 

a regulation in that area. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. 

And then another unusual thing that happened in the North 

Texas area the day after Christmas, we had a very severe tornado. 

It blew in suddenly. It came at nighttime. Difficult to let people 

know it is coming. The greatest loss of life occurred on a tollway 

overpass, not people getting under it to get out of the path of the 

storm, which I recognize is a bad idea because of the Venturi effect 

under the overpass, but these were people actually travel over the 

overpass and they got pulled off the road and, obviously, there were 

multiple fatalities. 

Department of Transportation has lighted signs that they put up 

and, as you alluded to, the Click It or Ticket, or Drive Sober or Get 

Pulled Over, sometimes there will be traffic warnings. Is there any 

thought to providing timely weather warnings? The hailstorm we 

just had a few days ago in my area, this tornado the day after 

Christmas, people that are—I would like to say that everybody is 

listening to the weather warning station at that point but we know 

they are not. They are listening to their sound systems. Is there 

anything additionally we can do? 

This was kind of a new phenomenon, something I had not seen 

before, but people, again, literally sucked off the overpass and 

thrown into the lake and, again, with great loss of life. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. You have just said it, which is we use those signs 

for a lot of different things. And I will go and talk to Greg Nadeau, 

who is the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration 

and see if that kind of information could be added to what is transmitted to the drivers. 

Mr. BURGESS. I appreciate that. Do you mind if I go to Mr. Bilirakis first? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No, that is fine. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

Administrator Rosekind, where do we stand currently with the 

V2V? Well, if you can tell me that. And then elaborate a little bit 

how it is going to work. 

34 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Sure. Let’s start with people talk about either or, 

connected vehicles or autonomous self-driving vehicles. The Department of Transportation thinks of this as connected automation. It 

is really both because they both give you sort of added safety. 

Connected vehicles are basically V2V, vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicleto-infrastructure, V2X, anything else, or basically they are all going 

to be able to talk. What we know is that studies so far suggest that 

even two applications of V2V could prevent 600,000 crashes and 

save 1,000 lives. So, it has huge opportunity. Overall, potentially 

80 percent of crashes that don’t involve an impaired driver could 

be prevented with V2V. 

So we have, actually, introduced a rulemaking which has been 

accepted by OMB for review just to try and set up a consistent 

piece of equipment that would be used for the whole system in the 

United States. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Well, when do you anticipate this being online or you know our constituents availability? Give me a timeline 

on that. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Right now, it has been accepted by OMB and is 

under review. So, that is kind of where we are, answering their 

questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So, 1 year, 2 years, any kind of an estimate? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I can tell you that the proposal is to have it out— 

I will check the final date in the proposal. We have a specific in 

the proposal for when it will be on the road. My caution is just to 

say that our piece has it out proposed, it is currently under review 

at Office of Management and Budget. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Next question. 

NHTSA has announced several initiatives and workshops on numerous issues over the last 6 months and plans to complete work 

on these topics prior to the end of the administration. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. How are you ensuring adequate work and 

thorough stakeholder engagement is done on these important 

issues before the final actions are taken? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Well, for a variety of the activities, they are, in 

fact, open public meetings. So retooling recalls was open. We have 

others, cognitive distraction that have been live webcasts for 

things. 

Right now the Secretary has announced in 6 months NHTSA is 

going to put out several things if you like to talk about autonomous 

vehicles. We just held the first public meeting on that last Friday. 

There is another one April 27th in California. There is an open 

docket for that. 

So, for activities that are leading to specific products, there is 

both some transparency and involvement from stakeholders. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. 

What are the key takeaways from the cybersecurity roundtable 

that NHTSA held in January? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Fascinating exchange because we had manufacturers in there with independent researchers and pretty much the 

whole mix. And I would just say one, it was fascinating to see that 

everybody thought you needed nimble and flexible, cautious about 

35 

regulations because they could be outdated cybersecurity-wise before they are even in place. And the other is that everybody identified this is critical not just for protection but for the trust of the 

American people to see these automation things get on the road. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, very good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Cardenas, 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Dr. Rosekind for coming forth and answering our 

questions. And you are welcome to ask questions as well. 

But I just wanted to thank you for all the work that you do and 

please, if you would, translate that to all of the good workers that 

you are surrounded with. And my first question has to be speaking 

of workers and the people you are able to surround yourself with, 

do you have as many people in your organization that you would 

need to address all the issues that you recognize you should be addressing or getting in front of? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. No. 

Mr. CARDENAS. I had a funny feeling that would be the answer. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. But if you will let me, I will just say—— 

Mr. CARDENAS. Please. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Well, thank you because this committee and the 

FAST Act is helping us get there. So, Office of Defect Investigations, which we have talked so much about has the potential now 

for us to hire 57 new people and address that issue. So, thank you 

so much because that is a huge difference for us. 

Mr. CARDENAS. So, 57 new people. I am glad we were able to 

make sure. Congress has the power of the purse. So, that is up to 

us to give you your budgets, et cetera. So, I am glad we did that. 

But being an engineer myself, and someone who understands 

how the best way to get in front of an issue is to be proactive and 

an organization that has to do with traffic safety like yours, it is 

very important that people understand that, unfortunately, it is not 

that often that the United States constituents receive the benefit 

of other countries good work on issues like this. We tend to be the 

leaders. Isn’t that the case? Not always, but tend to be the leaders 

more often than not. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And I try and preface this by saying I am biased. 

But I would like to say certainly in a lot of the technology innovations, the U.S. is a leader. 

Mr. CARDENAS. Yes, and I believe that is the case both in the 

issues we are talking about today here and in many, many things. 

It is something that we as Americans should be proud of but with 

all due respect, government does have its place, especially when it 

comes to safety of the American public and anybody who comes to 

our great country and assumes that safety is a priority for us and 

that we are continuing to make it a priority. So, once again, thank 

you, Doctor. 

I would like to ask you, as I am sure you are aware, in February, 

the Center for Auto Safety filed a lawsuit against the Department 

of Transportation alleging that by failing to publish technical servVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
36 

ice bulletins or TSBs in their entirety online for consumers, DOT 

was in violation of MAP–21s. Finally, on March 25th, DOT announced that it would publish TSBs and it has been brought to my 

attention that full TSBs are now available on the Web site. I look 

forward to ensuring they are all up as soon as possible. 

However, members of this committee worked very hard to have 

TSB publication included in MAP–21. And while I am pleased that 

NHTSA is beginning to finally comply with the requirements, I 

think it is unfortunate that it took a lawsuit to get NHTSA to 

make that happen. 

I would like to ask you about the Early Warning Reporting System. That system was put into place in 2000, after the highly publicized Ford Firestone tire recalls. Early Warning Reporting is intended to alert NHTSA to vehicle defects as early as possible, ideally, helping to identify major problems and minimizing the risk to 

the public. However, last year’s audit by the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General highlighted some problems 

with the current Early Warning Reporting System. It said that 

safety defects are often mis-categorized and that manufacturers 

have wide latitude on what information they are required to provide. 

Dr. Rosekind, what changes or improvements, if any, is NHTSA 

making to the Early Warning Reporting System to respond to the 

findings in the IG report? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, this came up in opening comments. This is an 

opportunity to give everybody an update. 

There were 17 recommendations that the Inspector General identified. The Early Warning Reports, EWRs, were one of them. We 

made an aggressive commitment to finish all of those recommendations within a 1-year period, so by the end of June 2016. And the 

Inspector General was very clear nobody ever does that, actually 

give them a schedule. 

We have six of those closed ahead of schedule and we have the 

other 11 already identified and on schedule to be finished by the 

end of June 2016. 

We have also done one other thing that nobody ever does. We 

have actually set up technical meetings with the IG’s office to tell 

them what our plans are to meet those recommendations so that 

we have an ongoing discussion with them to make sure we meet 

them in an appropriate closed way. 

Mr. CARDENAS. So, 11 out of 17 have been addressed ahead of 

schedule. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Six. The first six ahead of schedule. We are working on the other 11, which are on schedule. 

Mr. CARDENAS. OK, on schedule. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes. 

Mr. CARDENAS. It sounds like you are not only a good listener, 

you are a good action department. So, I just wanted to thank you 

so much for doing that. 

Ahead of schedule is great. On schedule is good. And we hope 

that you are able to do that. Not that you would want to opine, but 

I hope that on this side we are as good a listener as you are. Thank 

you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

37 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois for a redirect. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

So, just a few weeks ago, the new chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association or NADA said that—or maybe it is 

NADA, NADA sounds—I don’t know. OK, I don’t know which it 

is—said that we shouldn’t have legislation requiring dealers to fix 

all recalls on used cars before they can be sold because only six 

percent of recalls are hazardous. 

Now, I have a letter that we received today from Cally Houck, 

mother of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck and Alexander 

Brangman, father of Jewel Brangman. And it says as parents of 

precious, beautiful, talented daughters killed by recalled cars with 

lethal safety defects, we are appalled that you—it is a letter directed to Jeff Carlson, Chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association—that you would claim that ‘‘only six percent of recalls are hazardous.’’ Our daughters were driving or riding in cars 

that were the very defects that you claim were not hazardous and, 

therefore, acceptable for your car dealer members to sell to the 

public without repairing the defects first. 

So, Dr. Rosekind, I think it really is important to clarify this 

point. Does NHTSA require manufacturers to recall vehicles if a 

defect is even not safety related but all defects? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We have been at this before, haven’t we? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We have. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes. And a defect that is an open recall needs to 

be fixed, whether it is new, used, or rental. 

And we just heard the Congressman say the assumption in any 

one of those circumstances is that if there is open recall, there is 

no defect. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, do you plan to reply at all to the notion— 

first of all, is that accurate, in your view, that the deaths of these 

girls was caused by something claiming to be nonhazardous by the 

Dealers Association? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. This is one of those ongoing challenges of them 

trying to—of individuals trying to sort of split. That is why we are 

pretty straightforward. Any open recall needs to be fixed, period. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, are dealers prohibited, then, and should be 

prohibited from selling or leasing used cars until all recalls have 

been repaired? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That was in the GROW AMERICA Act and we 

believe any new, used, or rental should be free of defects. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I hope that is really strongly communicated. I feel an obligation to the people from whom we received 

this letter and to the lost daughters of theirs that we make that 

perfectly clear. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. 

And that concludes questions for the first panel. Dr. Rosekind, 

thank you very much for your forbearance in staying with us today. 

We will take a 2-minute recess to set up for the second panel, 

at which time, we will reassemble. 

[Recess.] 

38 

Mr. BURGESS. I want to welcome everyone back and thank everyone for their time and patience in being here today. 

We will move into our second panel for today’s hearing and we 

will follow the same format as the first panel. Each witness will be 

recognized to give 5 minutes to summarize their opening statement, followed by a round of questions from members. 

For our second panel, we have the following witnesses: Mr. Mitch 

Bainwol, President and CEO at Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Mr. John Bozzella, President and CEO at Global Automakers; Mr. Michael Wilson, CEO at Automotive Recyclers Association; Ms. Jackie Gillian, President at Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety; Ms. Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President at Motor and 

Equipment Manufacturers Association. 

We do appreciate you all being with us here today. We will begin 

the panel discussion with you, Mr. Bainwol, and you are recognized 

for 5 minutes to summarize your opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; JOHN 

BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS; 

MICHAEL WILSON, CEO, AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLERS ASSOCIATION; JACQUELINE GILLIAN, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR 

HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; ANN WILSON, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL 

Mr. BAINWOL. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

members of the committee, thank you for this chance to be here 

today to testify. I do so on behalf of 12 major OEMs based in the 

U.S., in Europe, and in Asia. Rather than read a prepared statement, I thought I would run through some slides very quickly to 

try to provide some context. So, if we can move to the next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. This first slide is a 65-year trend line of fatalities 

on the U.S. roads. The vertical bars are fatalities in absolute numbers. And you see the roughly 33,000, which is roughly where we 

were in 1949. The green line is vehicle miles traveled and the yellow line is fatalities by vehicle miles traveled, which are down 

about sevenfold. That is what the CDC described as a tremendous 

public health achievement of the second half of the century. 

The gains, thus far, have been on the basis of two primary factors. One is changes in behavior, fewer people driving drunk and 

more people driving belted. And that is great. 

And the second piece of that has been technology focused on 

crash worthiness. So, when an accident occurs, folks survive that 

crash. It moves that yellow line down forward into the future, we 

will require technology to prevent crashes. Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. So a quick recall summary. As you all know, we 

did significant research last summer with Global Automakers and 

we learned a number of things, one of which is in terms of awareness, about 85 percent of the awareness that folks have of the recall comes from communications, from the OEM, and/or from the 

39 

dealer. We also know that there is a relationship in terms of certain factors with recall completion. The more educated you are, the 

greater the level of completion, the higher the income, the greater 

the completion, the greater the risk perception, the higher the level 

of responsiveness. The older the age of the car, the less likely somebody is to bring the car in for completion. And the closer to the 

dealer relationship, the more likely somebody is to get that job 

done. 

So, what do we need? We need not just to drive awareness but 

to find ways to motivate people to comply with the recall. And we 

do mail and email until we are blue in the face. And folks, everybody gets a ton of communications and it is very hard to break 

through. It is not unlike campaigns and politics where sending a 

message is one thing; motivating somebody to behave is another 

thing. So, it is very, very tough. We need help and we need folks 

in the other elements of the ecosystem to engage. And that is why 

one of the reasons we are delighted with the FAST Act provision 

on DMVs. The pilot program, I think, they discussed with Administrator Rosekind, that is a really strong idea and we think that is 

worth pursuing. 

We also think it is a good idea and we have reached out to the 

insurance community because those folks engage drivers semi-annually, typically. And when you go in for a renewal or you go in 

for a quote, those folks can notify a consumer who is very focused 

on their car at that point about an open recall and they would be 

very, very helpful. Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. This is a sample insert. Given time, I will skip on. 

Next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. So this is really important in terms of 

dimensionalizing the problem we have got. There were 32,675 folks 

who died in 2014 on the roads and that is a tragedy. Of those, 

31,479 perished in accidents that had nothing to do with the vehicle. OK? Three—let me find the number here—1196, 3.7 percent 

were fatalities related to vehicle factors but in all vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, trucks, and light duty vehicles, 836, 2.6 percent were 

vehicle factors in light duty vehicles. And of that, roughly twothirds were accidents related to vehicle maintenance factors. 

So, under one percent of the factors in 2014 related to the vehicle. 

The other part down there is very hard to see in the lower right, 

relates to the age of the car. Five percent of the fatalities were in 

cars that were 5 years or newer. That same proportion of the fleet 

is 27 percent. 

Cars that are older than 10 years represented 75 percent of the 

fatalities and just 46 percent of the fleet. So, obviously, there is a 

very direct relationship with the age of the cars. 

I will skip through the next slide and let’s go to benefits of automation real fast. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. So, as you talk about the future and as you talk 

about technology and the tools necessary to drive increased levels 

of safety, there is this question about what happens with automaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
40 

tion. Is it going to be a revolution with autonomy or is it going to 

be an evolution toward autonomy? And the benefits you accrue accrue immediately. So, the safety benefits you get from things like 

automatic braking, the environmental benefits you get from automatic braking, national security reduced use of fuel from automatic 

braking. The factors that you don’t get, the benefits that you don’t 

get, are things like access, which does require full autonomy. 

Last slide, given the time. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BAINWOL. If you look at market penetration, as you examine 

the future, this is a study that was done by Moody’s that came out 

about a week ago and this is their estimate about the roll out of 

self-driving cars. 

In 2020, the self-driving car is available. That is roughly right. 

In 2030, they deem it to become common. In 2035, they deem it to 

become standard. And in 2045, they deem the fleet to be a majority 

self-driving. And in 2055, they deem it to be ubiquitous. 

So, we are talking about 40 years from now to ubiquity. Along 

the way, we have these technologies like automatic braking that 

will have a huge impact on the social benefits that we can accrue. 

We have an enormous opportunity to make fantastic safety gains 

and the focus on technology is when we should lean forward. I 

think the Administration has done exactly that. We applaud them 

for that. And we applaud this committee also for its focus on the 

promise of new technologies. 

[The prepared statement by Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

41 


20613.008
42 


20613.009
43 


20613.010
44 


20613.011
45 


20613.012
46 


20613.013
47 


20613.014
48 


20613.015
49 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. 

Mr. Bozzella, 5 minutes for your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member 

Schakowsky, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Global Automakers represents international automobile manufacturers and original equipment suppliers in the United States. Our 

members directly employ well over 100,000 Americans and sell over 

40 percent of all new vehicles purchased in the country. 

Our companies are improving the safety of vehicles in the road 

today and revolutionizing mobility. Automakers are competing furiously and taking the lead to introduce innovative technologies that 

address and solve problems. 

I have submitted written testimony in which I discuss these matters in more detail. I will highlight two critical policy priorities that 

will help drive life-saving technologies into the marketplace. But 

first, I would like to update the committee on actions we are taking 

to improve recall completions. 

The recent tragedy in Texas has shown that we must continue 

to work urgently to reach every affected customer and fix every single vehicle. Since we last met, the committee took decisive action 

in the FAST Act to investigate what we think is a very important 

idea, addressing recall completion through the vehicle registration 

process. We requested that appropriators fully fund the pilots. We 

have been encouraging states to look at this. And we urge NHTSA 

to release the request for proposal to get the process started. 

The industry has been working hard to complete the Takata recalls by securing alternative airbag supply, by employing new 

methods beyond what is required by law to find, inform, and encourage owners to bring their vehicles in for repair and participating also in NHTSA’s coordinated remedy program. The industry 

has also reached out to insurance companies, as Mitch just testified, asking for their help in notifying customers about open recalls. 

In January, automakers joined with the Department of Transportation to announce the Proactive Safety Principles. Under the principles, we are working with NHTSA to share best practices to improve recall completion rates and to examine ways to better identify potential safety risks earlier. Together we, the industry, policymakers, regulators, and safety advocates have made substantial 

progress over the last 50 years but we have much more to do. Innovation in the automated and connected vehicle space is already producing significant public benefits. 

There are two critical near-term priorities for federal regulators 

and policymakers to accelerate innovation and dramatically improve highway safety. First, the Federal Government needs to take 

leadership on vehicle automation. Federal policymakers have long 

recognized the public benefit of national motor vehicle safety standards that allow manufacturers to bring the latest advances in safety to consumers in all 50 states. 

A patchwork of local and state laws will almost certainly slow innovation. For instance, what happens when an automated vehicle 

meets the design criteria for one state but not another? Would the 

50 

vehicle be banned from crossing the state line? The Federal Government, working closely with stakeholders, must quickly expand 

its leadership role to ensure the development of policies that foster, 

rather than inhibit innovation. 

Secondly, the Federal Government must help accelerate the 

game-changing benefits that will come with connected cars. Moving 

NHTSA’s proposed vehicle-to-vehicle rule forward will create an 

interoperable standard so all cars can communicate with each other 

and the infrastructure to warn drivers of dangers and ultimately 

avoid crashes. 

After more than a decade of research and development and significant investment by both the public and private sectors, this 

technology is being tested on public roads and is ready for widespread deployment. Government support must ensure that both the 

vehicle standard is established and that access to the dedicated 

spectrum, free of harmful interference is maintained. With clear 

rules, innovation will flourish. 

Exciting developments in the automated and connected vehicle 

space are creating tremendous benefits, yet bring challenges that 

must be addressed. I believe that collaboration is the key to ensuring that the benefits of these technologies reach consumers. There 

is no one single approach to achieve this goal. So, let’s work together to develop and use the right tools in the right way. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement by Mr. Bozzella follows:] 

51 


20613.016
52 


20613.017
53 


20613.018
54 


20613.019
55 


20613.020
56 


20613.021
57 


20613.022
58 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Wilson, 5 minutes for your opening 

statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before you today. 

My name is Michael Wilson and I am CEO of the Automotive Recyclers Association. The ARA is dedicated to the efficient removal 

and reutilization of genuine original equipment automotive parts. 

The ARA represents the interests of over 4,500 professional automotive recyclers in the United States who each day sell over 

500,000 recycled parts. These quality, recycled original equipment 

parts are designed by automobile manufacturers and built to meet 

their requirements for fit, finish, durability, reliability, and safety. 

These parts are often subsequently reutilized in the repair and 

service of vehicles and continue to operate as they were originally 

intended. 

I come before you today with appreciati on for the Congress, including a provision in FAST Act that provides the automotive recycling industry to OE parts data on all recalled automotive parts 

and to discuss the important steps that must be taken to implement the provision. 

While the language in the FAST Act does not provide for access 

to all parts data for every motor vehicle, as did the version that 

passed the full House on November 4th of last year, it does signify 

the importance of part numbers to enhance consumer safety. 

ARA applauds Administrator Rosekind’s goal of 100 percent remedy rates for safety recalls and has had numerous discussions with 

the Administrator and NHTSA staff over the last several years. 

Since passage of the FAST Act, ARA has not had detailed conversations with NHTSA on this issue. However, we believe our previous 

outreach to NHTSA and the Congress has provided the Agency 

with significant insight into the data must be made available electronically to address consumer safety concerns. 

ARA’s leadership and staff stand ready to provide the agency 

with assistance on the complexities of part identification in the recycled parts supply chain. Specific data requirements need to be 

addressed to ensure that the new law has the positive and effective 

outcomes as intended. 

In my comments, I will address three main issues that need to 

be addressed by NHTSA for successful implementation. 

First, the provision’s purpose is to provide the recycling industry 

with the recall data necessary to specifically identify automobile 

manufacturers’ defective parts in the automotive supply chain. As 

I testified before this Subcommittee last October, the data on part 

names, part descriptions and part numbers must be tied to specific 

VIN numbers for recyclers to be able to identify manufacturers’ defective parts. 

The relationship between specific VINs and each vehicle manufacturer part number enables processing of the data with standard 

IT systems. It is only with access to specific VIN numbers tied to 

standardized parts information that the industry’s commercial inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
59 

ventory management system providers and large independent operators have the ability to cost effectively develop software that can 

automatically identify manufacturers’ defective recall parts that 

are in recyclers’ inventories or identity the vehicles which contain 

recalled parts prior to purchase by recycler. 

However, with only VIN ranges, the industry would be limited to 

manually mapping each recall campaign, a process that one inventory management system provider has already attempted, only to 

determine that it is so time consuming that having to manually 

map up the thousands of manufacturer recalls using VIN ranges 

would bankrupt the company. 

Secondly, ARA maintains that no new government database 

needs to be developed because manufacturers are already required 

by statute to maintain publicly available lists of specific VINs of 

the vehicles involved in recall that are included in a quarterly report. 

Currently, the statute also requires that these reports continue 

to be available online through www.safercar.gov as part of the 

manufacturer’s recall file. The current rule also requires manufacturers to submit their part 573 notification reports through 

NHTSA’s internet Web site portal. Given that manufacturers already submit quarterly recall reports electronically to NHTSA, 

ARA believes that the process may only involve a modest technical 

correction to provide stakeholders timely access to data fields within these reports, which in turn would allow these parties to crosscheck that information with the inventories of recyclers. However, 

providing these reports in a non-integratable format is unacceptable. NHTSA’s implementing language must adopt parts identification methods that embrace advancements in information technology resulting in a state-of-the-art electronic processing methods 

based on the relationship between the VIN and part numbers. Vehicle manufacturers themselves use this VIN–OE number relationships in their own parts ordering systems. Automobile manufacturers’ refusal to grant access to this precise parts identification method leads to a monopoly on critical safety information that puts consumers at risk and the entire independent replacement parts market at a disadvantage. 

It is no longer a matter of letting motor vehicle manufacturers 

decide whether it suits their business model to grant access to this 

data or not. It is a consumer safety concern that NHTSA must address. 

Lastly, it is important that NHTSA adequately address the scope 

of data that will be provided to the professional automotive recycling industry. To effectively address requirements under the 

TREAD Act as well as new requirements contained in the FAST 

Act that requires manufacturers to financially remedy their recall 

defects going back 15 years, automobile manufacturers must be required to provide this recalled parts data back to November 2000 

to cover the 10,252 recall campaigns over this time period. 

It is only through comprehensive access to both original equipment part numbers of recalled parts, tied to specific VINs that 

manufacturers and recyclers can come together to enhance overall 

motor vehicle safety; help improve recall remedy rates; and seek to 

60 

effectively address the federal recall remedy requirements for used 

equipment enacted 15 years ago in the TREAD Act. 

I am thankful for the attention of the Congress in the oversight 

of this critical safety issue and I thank you for this opportunity to 

speak before you today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michael Wilson follows:] 

61 


20613.023
62 


20613.024
63 


20613.025
64 


20613.026
65 


20613.027
66 


20613.028
67 


20613.029
68 


20613.030
69 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Ms. Gillian, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE GILLIAN 

Ms. GILLIAN. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman 

Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Jackie Gillian, President of Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety, a coalition of consumer health and safety and insurers 

working together to save lives by promoting adoption of highway 

and auto safety laws. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning. 

Although motor vehicle deaths are on the rise, the good news is 

that we have solutions at hand to reduce this death and injury toll. 

There is an unfinished and overdue safety agenda which needs attention and action by Congress and NHTSA. I would like to briefly 

highlight several needed improvements. 

The grim statistic about rising deaths comes at a time when 

Americans are also facing a record number of recalls for vehicle 

safety defects, which has been mentioned repeatedly this morning. 

The dangers posed by the record high number of recalls are exacerbated by the disturbingly low rate for completing repairs. However, 

the most effective and direct solution can be summed up in one 

word, prevention. The auto industry must identify safety problems 

sooner and take corrective action immediately. 

Millions of vehicles are under recall today, about one out of five 

registered vehicles because known safety defects were hidden for 

years from the public and from NHTSA. Now, consumers must 

bear the burden of driving defective vehicles, waiting months for 

replacement parts, and taking time to bring in their vehicles for repairs. 

Other necessary solutions are closing the loophole that permits 

dealers to sell used cars under recall, linking vehicle registration 

with repairing defects and providing NHTSA with imminent hazard authority to immediately stop the manufacturing of defective 

vehicles. 

Additionally, we commend the increased funding levels adopted 

in the FAST Act for NHTSA but it is still not enough to address 

the numerous challenges facing the agency. Insufficient resources 

will hamper NHTSA is available to ensure the safety of the car of 

today, as well as the safety of the car of tomorrow. 

One of the chronic problems facing NHTSA is timely completion 

of important rulemakings required by Congress. And I know there 

was focus on how well they were doing addressing the FAST Act 

requirements. There are many MAP–21 requirements that are 

overdue, some by more than a year. These include final rules due 

in 2014 to improve occupant protection in motor coaches for the 

roof strength and anti-ejection protection. In addition, motor coach 

fires are frequent, oftentimes fatal, and yet completely preventable. 

NHTSA has been ignoring repeatedly NTSB recommendations and 

their own research about strategies and rules that can be implemented to address fire prevention and that needs to change. 

70 

Child occupant protection is another top priority. Again, NHTSA 

has delayed conducting rulemakings required by Congress that affect the safety of all of our children. For example, rules requiring 

seatbelt reminders and improving the LATCH system for proper 

child restraint installation were due last October and still haven’t 

been issued. 

Also, as you mentioned Chairman Burgess, millions of children 

riding in the back seat are needlessly at risk but there are solutions available. There is no need for a child to tragically die from 

hyperthermia or hypothermia when inadvertently left behind in a 

vehicle or because the seat back fails in a crash and kills or seriously injures a child sitting behind a front seat passenger. 

It is time for NHTSA to issue rules requiring technology to alert 

adults to unattended children left in a car and to update the seat 

back strength standard, which was issued in 1967. 

Unfortunately, the FAST Act did not adopt important safety solutions that are still needed and contained in the Vehicle Safety 

Improvement Act of 2015. These include removing the cap on civil 

penalties, prohibiting regional recalls, upgrading early warning reporting requirements, and improving pedestrian safety. 

Advocates also believe that the advent of driverless cars in the 

future holds great promise to advance safety. However, federal 

oversight, minimum performance standards, as well as transparent 

and verified data are essential in the process. Consumers should 

not be guinea pigs in this experiment and NHTSA cannot be a passive spectator. 

Fifty years ago, Congress passed and President Johnson signed 

into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 

to protect the public against, and this is quoted from the law, unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles. The underlying principles of this prescient 50-year-old law have not changed. But in 

order for the agency to fulfill its statutory mission, NHTSA needs 

sufficient resources and a strong resolve to use its regulatory and 

enforcement authorities to protect the public. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillian follows:] 

71 


20613.031
72 


20613.032
73 


20613.033
74 


20613.034
75 


20613.035
76 


20613.036
77 


20613.037
78 


20613.038
79 


20613.039
80 


20613.040
81 


20613.041
82 


20613.042
83 


20613.043
84 


20613.044
85 


20613.045
86 


20613.046
87 


20613.047
88 


20613.048
89 


20613.049
90 


20613.050
91 


20613.051
92 


20613.052
93 


20613.053
94 


20613.054
95 


20613.055
96 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. And the chair 

apologizes. I mispronounced your name, Ms. Gillian. And I had a 

phonetic spelling in front of me, which I followed and I should have 

done what I knew was correct. 

Ms. GILLIAN. Well, no need to worry. When I was reviewing my 

statement right before I sent it over, my staff had misspelled my 

name. So, you are in good company. 

Mr. BURGESS. Ms. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 

your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky, members of the subcommittee, my name is Ann Wilson. I serve as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for 

the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on the 

implementation of provisions in the FAST Act. 

MEMA represents vehicle suppliers that manufacture and remanufacture components and systems for use in passenger cars 

and heavy trucks. Our members develop and manufacture original 

equipment to new vehicles, as well as aftermarket parts to service, 

maintain, and repair the over 256 million vehicles that are on the 

road today. Suppliers are the largest employer of manufacturing 

jobs in the United States, directly employing over 700,000 Americans with a total employment impact of 3.6 million jobs. 

Our members lead the way in developing advanced, transformative technologies that enable safer, smarter, and more efficient vehicles, all within a rapidly growing global marketplace. Ultimately, about two-thirds of the value of today’s vehicles comes 

from suppliers. Suppliers work closely with vehicle manufacturers 

to provide cutting edge, innovative systems and components for 

new vehicles. 

Today, I wanted to focus on the real benefits that advanced safety technology can provide to motor vehicle safety. There are many 

advanced safety features available in the vehicle marketplace ranging from passive to active systems that either warn, aid, and/or assist a driver and to avoid or mitigate vehicle crashes. These crash 

avoidance and mitigation technologies combined with decades of 

improved crash worthiness features provide the opportunity for significant overall reduction of fatalities, injuries, and property damage claims in the United States. 

In 2015, MEMA and the Boston consulting group released a report exploring the safety benefits to some of these systems, known 

collectively as advanced driver assistance systems or ADAS. Last 

year, MEMA testified before this subcommittee that ADAS technologies can provide immediate safety benefits and form the pathway to a partially and fully automated vehicle fleet that could virtually eliminate traffic fatalities. The study found that a suite of 

ADAS technologies has the potential to prevent as many as 30 percent of all crashes, a total of 10,000 lives—10,000 lives saved annually. 

However, relatively few vehicles on the road today have ADAS 

technologies and the market penetration is only growing at about 

two to five percent annually. Since driver error is, by far, the leadVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
97 

ing factor in motor vehicle crashes, the lack of widespread adoption 

of these technologies in the U.S. is a significant missed opportunity. Congress recognized the importance of these technologies 

with enactment of the FAST Act and the direction to NHTSA to include crash avoidance technologies in NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program. 

Shortly after passage, as Dr. Rosekind testified, NHTSA announced its envisioned upgrades to NCAP beginning with model 

year 2019 vehicles. The purpose of this enhancement is to expand 

the program beyond crash worthiness by including for the first 

time crash avoidance and mitigation technologies and pedestrian 

safety. 

MEMA commends Congress and NHTSA for taking this major 

stride to enhance and expand the NCAP categories and ratings. 

Collaboration between government, vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, safety advocates, and other stakeholders is key to the success of a significant evolution in the program. Even though NCAP 

is a voluntary, non-regulatory program, it has a substantial and direct impact on how automakers and suppliers design future vehicles and plan for emerging technologies. In addition, NCAP provides that all-important link of information to the consumer. 

There are a variety of other tactics that can be utilized by policymakers in industry to achieve the overarching goal of reducing 

crashes. MEMA supports the volunteer agreement between the 

automakers and NHTSA to make automatic emergency braking 

technology standard equipment in almost light duty vehicles by the 

year 2022. 

Additionally, MEMA strongly believes another key element to the 

expansion of ADAS technologies is the development of future regulations with our global counterparts, most notably, the European 

Union. 

These efforts do not equate to a lower standard of safety. Rather, 

a strong harmonized system can provide an opportunity to address 

new safety technologies in a transparent and efficient manner. 

Members of MEMA are committed to motor vehicle safety. As industry moves forward with increased collaboration with regulators, 

we believe that NHTSA’s use of NCAP program, voluntary agreements, and rulemaking has the potential to address many of our 

current challenges. 

MEMA also urges the agency to actively engage in the harmonization of new regulations that could speed completion of testing 

standards and regulations. 

We applaud this committee’s commitment to motor vehicle safety 

by updating the NCAP program and providing greater access to 

safety technology. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ann Wilson follows:] 

98 


20613.056
99 


20613.057
100 


20613.058
101 


20613.059
102 


20613.060
103 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

And I thank you all for your testimony and we will now move 

into the question portion of the hearing and I would like to yield 

the first 5 minutes to the vice-chair of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Lance, for your questions, please. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning and almost afternoon to you all. 

Ms. Gillian, I believe I heard you say that fatalities are increasing. Is that right? 

Ms. GILLIAN. Yes, they are. 

Mr. LANCE. Could you explain that, pleas? 

Ms. GILLIAN. NHTSA recently released data showing that comparing the first three quarters of 2014 with the first three quarters 

of 2015, that there has been over a nine percent increase in motor 

vehicle fatalities. And that increase actually represents one of the 

largest jumps that we have seen in the last 30 to 40 years. And 

so it is really significant and that is the reason we need to focus 

on what are those programs and strategies that can help turn that 

around. 

Mr. LANCE. Mr. Bainwol, would you like to comment on that? Because I am looking at your chart now and I see your chart goes to 

2014. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Right and that is because there are not official 

numbers yet for 2015. But we do know that the aggregate number 

has risen and it has risen beyond vehicle miles traveled. So, there 

is a delta there that is disconnected from the amount of travel and 

that is very, very concerning. 

What we don’t know is the cause. There are some clues. We 

won’t really be able to know until the full data set comes out. For 

instance, is this from motorcyclists? Is it pedestrians? Is it passengers? Is it drivers? We just don’t know. 

We have seen some early clue. There was a story I saw a couple 

of weeks ago comparing one state, in Wisconsin, pedestrian, motorcyclist, others and there was a spike in pedestrian. There was a 

spike in motorcyclists. But we won’t know until the full data set 

comes out. 

It is concerning but I would make one other, I think, crucial 

point. And that is if we lived in a zero defect world, 99 percent of 

the fatalities that we are addressing still exist. So, the question 

here is that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cope with the one percent, 

we should get that right. Recall policy is vitally important and we 

are totally committed to making sure we get it right. But we also 

have to find a way to deal with the preponderance of the problem, 

the 99 percent. And the good news that we have been talking about 

in this panel is that technology brings that possibility, the ability 

to avoid accidents will save thousands of lives. And the faster we 

can lean forward and implement that technology, the better off we 

are going to be. 

Mr. LANCE. According to your chart, in 2014 of the 32,675 fatalities, 1,196, as I understand your chart, were related to vehicle factors. Am I reading that chart accurately? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Correct. And factors represents two things, one are 

defects, and one is maintenance. So, if you have an improperly inflated tire, that is a maintenance issue and not a defect issue. 

104 

Mr. LANCE. And I am sure this is still a matter of speculation 

but could the increased fatalities, as Ms. Gillian has indicated, and 

I will ask Ms. Gillian as well, could they be based upon factors 

such as texting, for example? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So, I will give you an anecdotal response not a scientific response but, yes. 

Every day I drive to work. It takes me about an hour to get to 

work. And as I focus on my driving task, I also look to see what 

the other guy is doing. And I see lots of folks looking down at their 

phones. So, there is no question there is a texting problem, both 

in the car and, ironically, with pedestrians. If you watch people 

cross streets, more often than not, they are like this. 

Mr. LANCE. I see a texting problem in the hallways of Congress. 

Mr. BAINWOL. But not one on this panel. 

Mr. LANCE. No, it involves people a generation younger than you 

or I who are bumping into me as they are texting and not looking 

where they are going. 

Ms. Gillian, if you would like to respond to my series of questions. 

Ms. GILLIAN. Yes, I very much would like to. 

We need to really attack this problem, both looking at getting 

the—improving the behavior of the driver. Advocates is very active. 

In fact, we just put out this report, Missing in Action, on the need 

for states to step up and pass texting laws, tougher drunk driving 

laws, child restraint laws. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Ms. GILLIAN. However, the other part of the equation is also the 

issue of driving safer cars. And many years ago, the former president of MADD said to me, you know, Jackie, the best defense 

against a drunk driver is a safe car. 

So, you really need to attack both. And the problem is with all 

these recalls is that we have seen that people are not taking them 

in. You are getting two or three notices and then we have these 

deaths like the 17-year-old teenager in a low-speed crash. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time is expiring. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gillian, members of—no, no. In February—I wanted to preface this question—the Center for Auto Safety filed a lawsuit 

against DOT alleging that DOT’s failure to publish Technical Service Bulletins or TSBs online—— 

Ms. GILLIAN. I am sorry. I am having a hard time hearing you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, let me try again. 

Ms. GILLIAN. OK. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right. In February, the Center for Auto 

Safety filed a lawsuit against DOT alleging that DOT’s failure to 

publish Technical Service Bulletins or TSBs online was a violation 

of MAP–21. 

On March 25th, DOT issued a Federal Register notice saying 

that it would begin posting all TSBs online. Conveniently, TSBs 

started appearing yesterday on DOT’s Web site. 

105 

So, here is my question. Members of this committee drafted and 

pushed hard for the TSB publication provision in MAP–21. And I 

know this might sound rhetorical but should it have taken a lawsuit for DOT to start posting that information? And is this a pattern we should worry about? 

Ms. GILLIAN. Yes, and there is an issue, an example even closer 

to home, Representative Schakowsky—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Ms. GILLIAN [continuing]. And that is rearview cameras. That is 

also an issue where finally in 2008 we got legislation passed requiring rearview cameras as standard equipment. They will become 

standard equipment in 2018. Because of your legislation and your 

tenacious advocacy in the work that safety groups did, we ended 

up having to file a lawsuit to finally spring that rule free from 

OMB and the agency. 

So, we are kind of faced with all of these roadblocks. We can’t 

get the agency to issue the rules. I have given examples in my testimony. Then, when they are, they delay the deadlines. And then 

finally, we have to resort to litigation. 

And public interest groups, Public Citizen handled the case, both 

those cases for us but it really is unnecessary for these very common sense and important rules and regulations that consumers 

want. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me point out in terms of the rear visibility, that law actually passed in 2008. And so finally, in 2018, we 

will see that standard. 

So, I wanted to ask you, you talked quite a bit about recalls, as 

you said 2015 was another record-setting year for recalls, more 

than 51 million vehicles were recalled. Again, for Ms. Gillian. 

Dr. Rosekind has said publicly that NHTSA’s diligence in pursuing automakers for safety defects is part of why recalls have 

gone up, rather than just an increase in the number of defects. Perhaps that is partly the case. Some have suggested that because of 

the recent high profile recalls the industry is more willing to go to 

recall faster to get ahead of the story. 

What, in your view, is causing the rise in recalls and do you 

agree with Dr. Rosenkind’s assessment? 

Ms. GILLIAN. Well I think, as I said in my testimony, we supported legislation which removed the cap no civil penalties. We 

supported criminal penalties. 

I mean I think that you had GM, Takata, and VW feeling that 

they could ignore the law and produce cars that were faced with 

these defects and pretty much just face a fine that is a slap on the 

wrist is contributing to the problem. 

And I think that while you know I support what NHTSA is doing 

in trying to accelerate the consumers repairing their vehicles, I 

mean I think that we need a tough cop on the beat and I think that 

we need NHTSA—a lot of the issues we finally got Technical Service Bulletins published. 

There is still an issue with that agency on transparency. I just 

heard from one of my Board members, Standard for Auto Safety 

that is still trying to get documents out of them. It is still a very 

difficult and cumbersome process for consumers to get that information. 

106 

And I will tell you, if you look back on those three examples, GM, 

Takata, and VW, consumer groups played a big role in exposing 

those problems. And so you know that is the importance of having 

this information available so that we can also be a check on what 

is going on. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And thank you for that. 

A number of people brought up today in January NHTSA announced a voluntary agreement with 18 automakers called the 

Proactive Safety Principles. Do you expect that agreement to have 

an effect on recall rates? 

Ms. GILLIAN. Well, I will make that a short answer. No, because 

voluntary standards are rife with deficiencies. They are unenforceable. When a consumer goes in the showroom, they don’t know 

whether that car is meeting that standard. They are done in secret 

without any public input or from other state, and typically, they result in the lowest common denominator of industry practice and 

discourage innovation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My time is up. So, we will leave it at that. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. GILLIAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, 5 

minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank my good friend, our chairman. Welcome to 

all of our witnesses. I do not intend to ask any questions. I want 

to deliver a plea from home. 

On March 31st, 2 weeks ago today, Huma Hanif left George 

Ranch High School to head to her home. As she turned onto her 

street in her neighborhood, she tapped a car in front of her, a 

minor fender bender. Her airbag deployed with an explosion and 

sent a small piece of shrapnel the size of this nickel into her neck. 

She died in her own car with her seatbelt still on. She was 17 years 

old. Here is a photo of the accident scene. 

I drove to see where Huma died for myself. It was so close to my 

home. Eight turns, through seven traffic lights, and three stop 

signs and I was there. It was hard to believe a young girl could die 

right there in such a minor collision. 

I know that we have made a lot of progress in getting recalled 

cars in for repair. Right now about 70 percent. I have been told 70 

percent. That is great but I also know and I worry about another 

Huma being out there. 

I know that we can’t quit at 70 percent. The only acceptable 

number is 100 percent of recalled cars repaired with a defect like 

that. I wish I could tell you how to achieve this. I can’t. But I know 

that working together we can achieve our goals. And that starts by 

acting on the plea I promised at the start of my comments. It 

comes from Huma’s brother, Faizan. It is a short video. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. OLSON. That is Sheriff Troy Nehls. That is Faizan there, the 

brother. 

You can hear my voice. Your ears are working fine. The machine 

is not working properly right now. I am not saying anything. No 

comments. 

107 

That is the airbag that was deployed. That is the part that was 

lodged in her neck right there, about the size of a nickel. 

That works. 

Get out there and make sure people know if they drive a vehicle 

in America, log on to safercar.gov. Check out the car online. Make 

sure you don’t drive a defective car. If you do, get that car fixed. 

Let’s make sure another Huma will never happen again. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair would note that he deferred his questions for other 

committee members. And I will now yield myself 5 minutes for 

questions. 

So, OK, given what we have just seen—and I guess this is a 

question for you, Mr. Bainwol, perhaps you, Mr. Bozzella. And Mr. 

Bainwol, I am going to refer to the slide set that you gave us. And 

when you look down at the bottom corner with the stuff that was 

hard to read, the fatality percentage was 75 percent in cars that 

were older than 10 years, older than 2005. And that is 46 percent 

of the fleet. 

And that is the challenge because then if you look at some of the 

stuff that Mr. Rosekind had provided to us, the compliance with recall notices in that age set of cars that is older than 10 years is 

15 percent. So, we have got a disconnect there. 

Now you said something, either Mr. Bainwol or Mr. Bozzella, 

that really intrigued me in your testimony because you talked 

about working with insurance companies. And I actually tried to 

call up my insurance card on my iPhone. I couldn’t do it because 

I forgot my challenge question. But that is a separate issue. But 

your insurance company has your vehicle identification number, 

when you get your renewal on your insurance. 

And one of you mentioned partnering or getting insurance companies involved in this and to help with this. There is actually an 

opportunity. They have the data. And maybe we can talk to Mr. 

Rosekind about the larger data sets being able to go through more 

easily but that seems like a fix. And I know my insurance company 

that advertises heavily on TV and says 15 minutes could save you 

15 percent or more, everybody knows that. Boy, 15 minutes could 

save your life or your daughter’s life. I mean that is pretty important stuff. 

So, what can we do to engage our state DMVs and your insurance companies? There is a way to get this data transferred and 

get these cars in and fixed. Is there not? 

Mr. BAINWOL. The short answer is yes. We want to see every car 

fixed. We are desperately trying to communicate with car owners 

to move them to comply with the recall but we clearly have a problem doing that. And the older the car, the more difficult that challenge is. 

So, what that means is, it is an all hands on deck proposition. 

We are not trying to shift the burden. WE are trying to bring other 

people to the party to help get the job done. 

And it strikes us that DMV and the insurance world are the 

touchpoints that consumers engage with and you talk about the 

health of the vehicle at that point. And so they are a perfectly natural place to go to augment our efforts. They also have better data. 

108 

So, we have custody of the name when we sell a new car but oftentimes with a car that is 10 or 11 years old, it is going to be sold 

multiple times, sometimes by private parties. And so the custody, 

the trail goes cold. And so the trail is hotter with DMV and with 

the insurance companies. And so we turn to everybody in the ecosystem to say help. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well it seems like there is some opportunities 

there. And the insurance, when you have mentioned an insurance 

company, that kind of leapt off the page I think because they had 

your VIN number. I mean it is on your card. You have the card. 

You have to buy it. The state requires you to buy it to drive on 

their streets. 

I appreciate the efforts that the automobile manufacturers have 

made. I know I have seen full page adds in the Dallas Morning 

News on several occasions, I think last summer when Dr. Rosekind 

increased the recall notice. 

I don’t doubt that the manufacturers have a very vested interest 

in getting a defective car back and getting it fixed. They don’t want 

their customers put at risk. But there are other people, as you describe it in the ecosystem. The insurance company has that vehicle 

identification number and it is touched once or twice a year. People 

go in for an oil change two or three times a year. And then, of 

course, in my state, we have to go get a state inspection and comply with all kinds of things. That is another opportunity. 

I like your statement of an every hands on—all hands on deck 

proposition. 

Let me just ask you because this came up in an interview I was 

doing this morning with one of my local television stations. And 

they said they had a viewer who had received a recall notice and 

was trying to get her car fixed and there was no part available. 

How would you address that viewer? What can we tell her? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. It is a very important question, Mr. Chairman. 

And first, the customer should call the manufacturer. It is very important that the customer call the manufacturer and explain the 

situation, the vehicle, the VIN and listen to the advice and counsel 

of the company that will tell them what the parts availability situation is. 

The customer should also reach out to the dealer and get additional information about how the dealer is handling parts flow into 

the dealership and the repair. 

I think these are really very, very important questions but I 

would start very much with calling the manufacturer and asking 

what that specific manufacturer’s situation is. 

Mr. BURGESS. So, here is the real world situation. It is the third 

or fourth owner. They didn’t buy it from a dealer but they know 

what the make of the automobile is. So, go to a Web site and get 

an 800 number? What are the practical steps that that person— 

they took it to a garage. They said we would like to help you but 

we can’t get that right now, they are on back order. That person 

should call the dealer—not the dealer but the manufacturer at an 

800 number they can find on internet down at their library if they 

don’t have access to a computer? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. That is correct. They can find the 800 number. 

They can go to the Web site. You will many manufacturers have 

109 

information on the Web sites specifically related to an open recall. 

So, there is important information both at the Web site and on caller assistance lines and consumer assistance lines. And I think this 

is very important in addition to going to safercar.gov. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I have gone way over time but I do want to 

ask one additional question because we dealt with a problem with 

an ignition switch a year, year and a half ago, 2 years ago. Now, 

we don’t hear about that any longer. Is that we don’t hear about 

it because the problem has been fixed and everyone has brought 

their cars in and gotten the recall taken care of on the key that 

was switching off on the ignition or why is it that we are not hearing any longer about those defects? Are they all done? Are we at 

100 percent compliance? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I don’t know what the actual compliance rate is 

but we will check it and come back to you. 

Mr. BURGESS. I appreciate that. 

I am going to yield back to myself and recognize Mr. Guthrie 

from Kentucky for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this committee and thank you, everybody, for being here. 

My first questions are on cybersecurity. And Mr. Bainwol, Mr. 

Bozzella, could you provide information—you brought an update on 

the Auto ISAC Information Sharing and Analysis Center. How 

much information sharing is occurring between members of the 

Auto ISAC? And have any vulnerabilities been uncovered that were 

not previously known to certain ISAC members through the information sharing? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I will go first. So, the ISAC is up and running. It 

was stood up by the end of last year. So, the portal is working. 

There is an exchange, at thread information. We have also 

brought on—begun the process of bringing in suppliers. NHTSA 

has been briefed. 

So, we are making progress. We are also involved in a best practices effort, where the framework has already been established. 

And we will be rolling it out in more detail by the summer. 

As Dr. Rosekind mentioned, there has never been a market 

cyber-attack just yet but we know it is coming and we are the first 

industry to get ahead of the curve, to establish and ISAC before an 

event actually occurs. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. Anything to add to that? 

So, I will ask another question on that. Should cyber 

vulnerabilities in vehicles be approached differently in terms of the 

recall response from the agency and reporting requirements from 

automakers than traditional safety defects found in the motor vehicles? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. It is an important question. When is a vulnerability a defect and when is it not a defect? This is a question that 

the agency is currently reviewing. It is a conversation that we are 

having within the ISAC discussion among the automotive associations. And it really does speak to why it is so important that we 

extend the cybersecurity best practices framework that we have already announced and start to build out those cyber best practices. 

It is critical that we design cyber security and that we think about 

it, not only think about it but act on it throughout the design procVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:41 Mar 03, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-133 CHRIS
110 

ess, throughout the manufacturing process and throughout the 

ownership process. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Should dealing with cyber issues be treated within 

the recall system like safety defects? The system we have today, 

should cyber issues be treated similarly or should there be a separate way to deal with that? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think the short answer is it depends on the circumstances. A vulnerability is not by definition a defect. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Right. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. So, I think you have to start there. And then the 

question is what is it that we are addressing with regard to the 

systems in the vehicle and perhaps more broadly. 

But a vulnerability is not, itself, an indication of a defect. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I guess you have to say everything is vulnerable 

to some degree, hopefully a very limited degree but everything 

would be somewhat vulnerable, I guess. 

Mr. BAINWOL. When you slash a tire on a car, the tire, itself is 

not defective. It is a malicious act. And so we think that to some 

extend that does apply. 

I think it is also important just to—Dr. Rosekind made the point 

earlier today that the cybersecurity issue requires nimbleness. And 

one of the topics of discussion, not to open up a can of worms but 

to go ahead and maybe go there a bit is how do you manage change 

in a world in which technology and innovation is happening very 

quickly. 

And what Dr. Rosekind was saying was regulation does not necessarily work fast enough to deal with the rate of innovation. And 

so that is a very, very important point and certainly is true in the 

cyber case. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. A quick question. I am going to turn to Proactive 

Safety Principles and stick with you two for a second. 

What is the timing for implementation of each of these Proactive 

Safety Principles? And are you or member companies having regular meetings with NHTSA to coordinate the implementation of the 

principles? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. We are working as associations to coordinate the 

process. That coordination is already taking place and we are in 

communication with NHTSA right now, as a matter of fact, at the 

level of engagement with the administrator directly and then more 

broadly. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, I will go ahead and go to Mrs. Wilson. How 

will the Proactive Safety Principles be reflected in the work suppliers do with automakers or in the aftermarket context? 

Ms. WILSON. Well, we have been asked by NHTSA and we are 

now currently drafting our own principles that are—we have a 

thousand members. So, it is going to take it a little bit longer to 

review them. And obviously, we want to reflect both the responsibilities that our OE suppliers have with vehicle manufacturers 

but also the impact of the aftermarket. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thank you. 

Ms. WILSON. We support the principles that were laid out but, 

obviously, we feel like there is some other initiatives that we think 

that are important for us to also address. 

111 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I just have a couple of seconds. So, Mr. Wilson, 

how would it affect auto recyclers, the Safety Principles? 

Mr. WILSON. I think on the automotive recycler side, I would sort of lump us in to independent operators within that $300 billion 

aftermarket space. And again, to make sure that cybersecurity is 

protected. 

You have other issues, security issues with vehicles that the 

amount of folks that are able to work on those vehicles is very, 

very limited based on those security concerns. And so we have got 

to find a way to make sure that the independent operators out 

there can work in that space, that they are not blacklisted from 

working on that. 

And I think the European Union has put in some good language 

to work on that. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. It is the chairman’s time now. I 

don’t know if you want to give her a chance. Do you want her to 

respond? If the chairman allows. 

Mr. BURGESS. Proceed. 

Ms. WILSON. Just one quick thing on the aftermarket, the cybersecurity. There is some real work going on within the industry. We 

talked about how we are training mechanics and training folks who 

are going to service the vehicles and so the consumer would know 

when you take a vehicle to auto repair shop, that they are dealing 

with someone who knows how to deal with security issues. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. If the chairman allows. 

Ms. GILLIAN. Could I just add one thing? I know that Mr. 

Bainwol talked about voluntary standards. And on cybersecurity, I 

think that is a really strong case where we don’t want voluntary 

standards because voluntary means just that. You don’t have to 

abide by them. 

And I think as we enter this brave new world of driverless cars 

and the fear of cybersecurity problems, that that is when we really 

need an agency like NHTSA setting those minimum standards, so 

that everybody is playing by the same rules and that consumers 

can be confident that these are not something that one automaker 

decides to abide by and the other ones say well, it is kind of expensive, we don’t want to do this. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. My time is way over and so I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence and your answers. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, the chair 

would inquire of the gentlelady from Illinois if she has concluded 

questioning her thought? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I do not and I need to go. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady needs to go. 

So, and it came up, Mr. Bainwol, Mr. Bozzella, and with you, Mr. 

Wilson, the all hands on deck nature of this. And we heard the 

very emotional testimony from Mr. Olson, who has now lost two 

constituents to an airbag rupture. And it is important. We have a 

role. You have a role. Perhaps we can enlist help from insurance 

companies and state DMVs. 

But let me just once again stress, moms and dads, brothers and 

sisters, you have a role. And this data is easily accessible to you. 

The lower left hand of your windshield is your vehicle identification 

112 

number, just inside the driver’s side doorpost, behind as you get in 

and out of the car on the driver’s side. Safercar.gov. Safe with an 

R car.gov and you can query the database. Any time you take your 

car in for service, you would ask the dealer have you queried the 

database. 

This data will change. It is not static. We heard this morning 

about another 30,000 cars that have been added for a recall. So, 

the database, you can’t just check it the first of the year and be 

done with it. You need to check from time to time. Perhaps an appropriate interval is when you take your car in for service. But this 

has been, obviously a very important hearing and I do want to 

thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

Before I conclude, I would like to submit the following documents 

for the record by unanimous consent: a letter from RMA, a letter 

from PCI, a letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. 

Oh, and I forgot. I will have a question dealing with the event 

data recorders that are in automobiles. And as to the ownership of 

that data, who has title to that information? This actually came up 

when we did the uncommanded acceleration hearings several years 

ago. Who owns the data in the electronic data recorders? And I will 

submit that for the record. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have one as well, if I could request. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to submit for the record the letter 

that we received from Mrs. Houck and Mr. Brangman. Did you already do that? 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I did. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Oh, I am sorry. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. I ask witnesses to submit their responses to written questions within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

It has been a good hearing. I think we have learned a lot. I think 

we all recognize that there is still a lot to do and I encourage people to check the NHTSA Web site. It is extremely important. 

With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

113 


20613.061
114 


20613.062
115 


20613.063
116 


20613.064
117 


20613.065
118 


20613.066
119 


20613.067
120 


20613.068
121 


20613.069
122 


20613.070
123 


20613.071
124 


20613.072
125 


20613.073
126 


20613.074
127 


20613.075
128 


20613.076
129 


20613.077
130 


20613.078
131 


20613.079
132 


20613.080
133 


20613.081
134 


20613.082
135 


20613.083
136 


20613.084
137 


20613.085
138 


20613.086
139 


20613.087
140 


20613.088
141 


20613.089
142 


20613.090
143 


20613.091
144 


20613.092
145 


20613.093
146 


20613.094
147 


20613.095
148 


20613.096
149 


20613.097
150 


20613.098
151 


20613.099
152 


20613.100
153 


20613.101
154 


20613.102
155 


20613.103
156 


20613.104
157 


20613.105
158 


20613.106
159 


20613.107
160 


20613.108
161 


20613.109
162 


20613.110
163 


20613.111
164 


20613.112
165 


20613.113
166 


20613.114
167 


20613.115
168 

Æ 


20613.116