89–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–536 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 2010 

JULY 14, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WAXMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5381] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 5381) to require motor vehicle safety standards relating to vehicle electronics and to reauthorize and provide greater 

transparency, accountability, and safety authority to the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 12 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 12 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 13 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 13 

Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................................ 20 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 20 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 20 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 20 

Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits .................................................................. 20 

Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................................ 20 

Applicability of Law to the Legislative Branch ..................................................... 20 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 20 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 21 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
2 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 21 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 26 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 31 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 31 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 38 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

2010’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

TITLE I—VEHICLE ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY STANDARDS 

Sec. 101. Electronics and Engineering Expertise. 

Sec. 102. Brake override standard. 

Sec. 103. Accelerator control systems. 

Sec. 104. Pedal placement standard. 

Sec. 105. Electronic systems performance standard. 

Sec. 106. Push-button ignition systems standard. 

Sec. 107. Transmission configuration standard. 

Sec. 108. Vehicle event data recorders. 

Sec. 109. Commercial motor vehicle rollover prevention and crash mitigation. 

Sec. 110. Minimum sound requirement. 

Sec. 111. Driver alcohol detection system research. 

TITLE II—TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Sec. 201. Public availability of early warning data. 

Sec. 202. Improved NHTSA vehicle safety database. 

Sec. 203. Promotion of vehicle defect reporting. 

Sec. 204. NHTSA hotline for manufacturer, dealer, and mechanic personnel. 

Sec. 205. Corporate responsibility for NHTSA reports. 

Sec. 206. Appeal of defect petition rejection. 

Sec. 207. Deadlines for rulemaking. 

Sec. 208. Reports to Congress. 

Sec. 209. Restriction on Covered Vehicle Safety Officials. 

TITLE III—FUNDING 

Sec. 301. Vehicle safety user fee. 

Sec. 302. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE IV—ENHANCED SAFETY AUTHORITIES 

Sec. 401. Civil penalties. 

Sec. 402. Imminent hazard authority. 

TITLE V—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 501. Preemption of State law. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) The term ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’ means a motor vehicle (as defined in 

section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code) that is rated at less than 

10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight. Such term does not include— 

(A) a motorcycle; 

(B) a trailer; or 

(C) a low speed vehicle (as defined in section 571.3 in title 49, Code of 

Federal Regulations). 

(2) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Transportation, acting 

through the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

TITLE I—VEHICLE ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY 

STANDARDS 

SEC. 101. ELECTRONICS AND ENGINEERING EXPERTISE. 

(a) CENTER FOR VEHICLE ELECTRONICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES.— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
3 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish, within the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, a Center for Vehicle Electronics and Emerging 

Technologies. The Center shall— 

(A) build, integrate, and aggregate the agency’s expertise in vehicle electronics and other new and emerging technologies; 

(B) coordinate with all components of the agency responsible for vehicle 

safety, including research and development, rulemaking, and defects investigation; and 

(C) conduct research into the use of lightweight materials in vehicles, including through the implementation of the Plastic and Composite Intensive 

Vehicle Safety Roadmap (Report No. DOT HS 810 863). 

(2) LIMITATION.—Not more than 20 percent of the funds spent by the Center 

in a given year may be spent for the purposes described in paragraph (1)(C). 

(b) HONORS RECRUITMENT PROGRAM.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish, within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an honors program for engineering students 

and other students interested in vehicle safety that will enable them to train 

with engineers and other safety officials for a career in vehicle safety. The Secretary is authorized to provide a stipend to students during their participation 

in the program. 

(2) TARGETED STUDENT.—The Secretary shall develop a plan to target and 

make an aggressive outreach to recruit the top 10 percent of science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics students attending— 

(A) 1890 Land Grant Institutions (as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 

7061)); 

(B) Predominantly Black Institutions (as defined in section 318 of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059e)); 

(C) Tribal Colleges or Universities (as defined in section 316(b) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b))); and 

(D) Hispanic Serving Institutions (as defined in section 318 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 059e)). 

SEC. 102. BRAKE OVERRIDE STANDARD. 

(a) UNINTENDED ACCELERATION.—The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant to section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, to prescribe or 

amend a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would mitigate unintended acceleration in passenger motor vehicles. The standard— 

(1) shall establish performance requirements that enable a driver to bring a 

passenger motor vehicle safely to a full stop by normal braking application even 

if the vehicle is simultaneously receiving accelerator input signals; 

(2) may permit compliance with such requirements through a smart pedal 

system that requires brake pedal application, after a period of time determined 

by the Secretary, to override an accelerator input signal in order to stop the vehicle; and 

(3) may permit vehicles to incorporate a means by which the driver would be 

able to temporarily disengage the technology or mechanism required under 

paragraph (1) to facilitate operations, such as maneuvering trailers, or other operating conditions, that may require the simultaneous operation of the service 

brake and accelerator pedal. 

(b) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) within 

1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 103. ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124 to require that at least 1 redundant circuit or other mechanism be built into accelerator control systems, including systems 

controlled by electronic throttle, to maintain vehicle control in the event of failure 

or malfunction in the accelerator control system. 

(b) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) within 

2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(c) COMBINED.—If the Secretary considers it appropriate, the Secretary may combine the rulemaking proceeding required by subsection (a) with the rulemaking proceeding required by section 102. 

SEC. 104. PEDAL PLACEMENT STANDARD. 

(a) CONSIDERATION OF RULE.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant 

to section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, to consider prescribing or amending 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards to prevent the potential obstruction of pedal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
4 

movement in passenger motor vehicles by establishing minimum clearances for passenger motor vehicle foot pedals with respect to other pedals and the vehicle floor 

(including aftermarket floor coverings), taking into account various pedal mounting 

configurations. 

(b) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.—If the Secretary determines such safety standards 

are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate, the Secretary shall prescribe the safety 

standards described in subsection (a) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act. If the Secretary determines that no additional safety standards 

are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate the Secretary shall transmit a report 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate describing 

the reasons such standards were not prescribed. 

SEC. 105. ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE STANDARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant to section 30111 of title 49, 

United States Code, to consider requiring electronic systems in passenger motor vehicles to meet minimum standards for performance. The Secretary shall consider 

the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences pursuant to 

its study of electronic vehicle controls and unintended acceleration. The standard 

may include requirements for electronic components, the interaction of those electronic components, or the effect of surrounding environments on those electronic 

systems. 

(b) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.—If the Secretary determines such safety standards 

are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate, the Secretary shall prescribe the safety 

standards described in subsection (a) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act. If the Secretary determines that no additional safety standards 

are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate the Secretary shall transmit a report 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate describing 

the reasons such standards were not prescribed. 

SEC. 106. PUSH-BUTTON IGNITION SYSTEMS STANDARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant 

to section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, to prescribe or amend a Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard for passenger motor vehicles equipped with push-button ignition systems, to establish the standard operation and function of such systems when used by drivers, including drivers unfamiliar with the vehicle, in an 

emergency situation when the vehicle is in motion. 

(b) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) within 

2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 107. TRANSMISSION CONFIGURATION STANDARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant 

to section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, to revise Federal motor vehicle safety standard 102, to improve the recognition of the gear selector positions for drivers, 

including drivers unfamiliar with the vehicle, and to improve the conspicuity of the 

neutral position. 

(b) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) within 

1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 108. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS. 

(a) REQUIRED EVENT DATA RECORDERS.—Not later than 6 months after the date 

of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall modify the regulation contained 

in part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require that passenger motor 

vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that 

meets the requirements for event data recorders set forth in such part. The Secretary shall require manufacturers to include such event data recorders in their entire fleet beginning in model year 2015. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR EVENT DATA RECORDERS.—The Secretary shall initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding pursuant to section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, 

to require that the event data recorders required to be installed in passenger motor 

vehicles pursuant to subsection (a) continuously record vehicle operational data that 

can be stored and accessed for retrieval and analysis in accordance with subsections 

(c) and (d). 

(c) SPECIFICATIONS.—The rule— 

(1) shall require such recorders to store data covering a reasonable time before, during, and after a crash or airbag deployment, including information on 

engine performance, steering, braking, acceleration, vehicle speed, seat belt use, 

and airbag deployment level, deactivation status, deployment time, and deployVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
5 

ment stage, and may require such recorders to store other data, such as data 

related to vehicle rollovers, as the Secretary considers appropriate; 

(2) shall require such recorders to store data covering at least a sufficient period of time to capture all relevant data from a crash, including vehicle rollovers, and shall establish appropriate recording times for capturing data prior 

to a crash event; 

(3) may require such recorders to capture certain events such as rapid deceleration and full braking lasting more than 10 seconds, even if there is not a 

crash or airbag deployment; 

(4) may not require information recorded or transmitted by such data recorders to include the vehicle location, except for the purposes of emergency response; 

(5) shall require that data stored on such recorders be accessible, regardless 

of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment; 

(6) shall specify any data format requirements or other requirements, including a standardized data access port, the Secretary determines appropriate to facilitate accessibility and analysis; and 

(7) shall require that such recorders meet at least the performance requirements for crash resistance included in part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as amended January 14, 2008), and, if the Secretary determines that 

these requirements do not provide adequate temperature, crash, or water resistance, shall establish such additional standards. 

(d) LIMITATIONS ON INFORMATION RETRIEVAL.— 

(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA.—The rule issued under subsection (b) shall provide 

that any data in a data recorder required under the rule is the property of the 

owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the data recorder is installed. 

(2) PRIVACY.—The rule issued under subsection (b) shall provide that information recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by 

a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless— 

(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a 

legal proceeding; 

(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for 

any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the 

motor vehicle; or 

(C) the information is retrieved by a government motor vehicle safety 

agency for the purpose of improving motor vehicle safety if the personally 

identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the 

vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information. 

(3) TAMPER RESISTANCE.—The rule issued under subsection (b) shall establish 

performance requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored 

on such event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data. 

(e) DISCLOSURE OF EXISTENCE AND PURPOSE OF EVENT DATA RECORDER.—The 

rule issued under subsection (a) shall provide that any owner’s manual or similar 

documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale shall disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data 

recorder and explain the purpose of the recorder. 

(f) ACCESS TO EVENT DATA RECORDERS IN DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS.—Section 

30166(c)(3)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, including 

any electronic data contained within the vehicle’s diagnostic system or event data 

recorder’’ after ‘‘equipment’’. 

(g) DEADLINE FOR RULEMAKING.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 109. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASH MITIGATION. 

(a) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding pursuant to section 30111 

of title 49, United States Code, to prescribe or amend a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard to reduce commercial motor vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes and 

mitigate deaths and injuries associated with such crashes for air-braked motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds. 

(b) REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.—The rulemaking proceeding initiated 

under subsection (a) shall establish standards to reduce the occurrence of rollovers 

consistent with stability enhancing technologies that address both rollovers and 

loss-of-control crashes. 

(c) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) not 

later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
6 

SEC. 110. MINIMUM SOUND REQUIREMENT. 

(a) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 18 months following the date of enactment of 

this Act the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section 30111 

of title 49, United States Code, to promulgate a motor vehicle safety standard to 

establish performance requirements for an alert sound that allows blind and other 

pedestrians to reasonably detect a nearby electric or hybrid vehicle operating below 

the cross-over speed, if any. Such standard— 

(1) shall require new electric or hybrid vehicles to provide an alert sound conforming to the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standard established 

under this subsection; 

(2) shall not require either driver or pedestrian activation of the alert sound; 

(3) shall allow the pedestrian to reasonably detect a nearby electric or hybrid 

vehicle in critical operating scenarios, including but not limited to constant 

speed, accelerating, and decelerating; 

(4) shall allow manufacturers to provide each vehicle with 1 or more alert 

sounds that comply with the motor vehicle safety standard at the time of manufacture; and 

(5) shall require manufacturers to provide, within reasonable manufacturing 

tolerances, the same alert sound or set of alert sounds for all vehicles of the 

same make and model and shall prohibit manufacturers from providing any 

mechanism for anyone other than the manufacturer or the dealer to disable, 

alter, replace, or modify the alert sound or set of alert sounds, except that the 

manufacturer or dealer may alter, replace, or modify the alert sound or set of 

alert sounds in order to remedy a defect or non-compliance with the motor vehicle safety standard. 

(b) CONSIDERATION.—When conducting the required rulemaking, the Secretary 

shall— 

(1) determine the minimum level of an alert sound emitted from a motor vehicle that is necessary to provide blind and other pedestrians with the information needed to reasonably detect a nearby electric or hybrid vehicle operating 

at or below the cross-over speed, if any; 

(2) determine the performance requirements for an alert sound that is recognizable to a pedestrian as a motor vehicle in operation; and 

(3) consider the overall noise impact to streets and communities. 

(c) PHASE-IN REQUIRED.—The motor vehicle safety standard prescribed pursuant 

to subsection (a) shall establish a phase-in period for compliance, as determined by 

the Secretary, and shall require full compliance with the required motor vehicle 

safety standard for motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1 of the calendar year that begins 3 years after the date on which the final rule is issued. 

(d) CONSULTATION.—When conducting the required study and rulemaking, the 

Secretary shall consult with— 

(1) the Environmental Protection Agency to assure that the motor vehicle 

safety standard is consistent with existing noise requirements overseen by the 

Agency; 

(2) consumer groups representing individuals who are blind; 

(3) automobile manufacturers and professional organizations representing 

them; and 

(4) technical standardization organizations responsible for measurement 

methods such as the Society of Automotive Engineers, the International Organization for Standardization, and the United Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe, World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. 

(e) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) not 

later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(f) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall complete a study and report to Congress as to whether 

there exists a safety need to apply the motor vehicle safety standard required by 

subsection (a) to conventional motor vehicles. In the event that the Secretary determines there exists a safety need, the Secretary shall initiate rulemaking under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code to extend the standard to conventional 

motor vehicles. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of the motor vehicle safety standard required 

under this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘alert sound’’ means a vehicle-emitted sound that enables pedestrians to discern vehicle presence, direction, location, and operation; 

(2) the term ‘‘cross-over speed’’ means the speed at which tire noise, wind resistance, or other factors eliminate the need for a separate alert sound, as determined by the Secretary; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
7 

(3) the term ‘‘conventional motor vehicle’’ means a motor vehicle powered by 

a gasoline, diesel, or alternative fueled internal combustion engine as its sole 

means of propulsion; 

(4) the term ‘‘electric vehicle’’ means a motor vehicle with an electric motor 

as its sole means of propulsion; and 

(5) the term ‘‘hybrid vehicle’’ means a motor vehicle which has more than one 

means of propulsion. 

SEC. 111. DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM RESEARCH. 

(a) RESEARCH.—The Secretary shall carry out a collaborative research effort to 

continue to explore the feasibility and the potential benefits of, and the public policy 

challenges associated with, more widespread deployment of in-vehicle technology to 

prevent alcohol-impaired driving. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall submit a report annually to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation of the Senate— 

(1) describing progress in carrying out the collaborative research effort; and 

(2) including an accounting for the use of Federal funds obligated or expended 

in carrying out that effort. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION.—From amounts appropriated under section 30104 of title 49, 

United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to expend $8,000,000 during each 

of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to conduct the research required under this section. 

TITLE II—TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

SEC. 201. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF EARLY WARNING DATA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 30166(m) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

by in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) DISCLOSURE.—The information provided to the Secretary pursuant to 

this subsection shall be disclosed publicly unless exempt from disclosure 

under section 552(b) of title 5.’’. 

(b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall issue regulations regarding public access to information submitted pursuant to section 30166(m). The Secretary may establish categories of information provided pursuant to such section that must be made available to the 

public and categories that are exempt from public disclosure under section 552(b) 

of title 5, United States Code. 

(c) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the rulemaking required under subsection (a), 

the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and the Director of the Office of Information Policy of the Department of Justice. 

(d) PRESUMPTION AND LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall issue the regulations with 

a presumption in favor of maximum public availability of information. The following 

types of information shall not be eligible for protection under section 552(b)(4) of 

title 5, United States Code, and shall not be withheld from public disclosure: 

(1) Production information regarding passenger motor vehicles, information 

on incidents involving death or injury, and numbers of property damage claims. 

(2) Aggregated numbers of consumer complaints. 

(e) NULLIFICATION OF PRIOR REGULATIONS.—Beginning 2 years after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, the regulations establishing early warning reporting class 

determinations in Appendix C of section 512 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 

shall have no force or effect. 

SEC. 202. IMPROVED NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY DATABASE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall improve public accessibility to information on the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s publicly accessible vehicle safety databases 

by— 

(1) improving organization and functionality, including design features such 

as drop-down menus, and allowing for data to be searched, aggregated, and 

downloaded; 

(2) providing greater consistency in presentation of vehicle safety issues; and 

(3) improving searchability about specific vehicles and issues through standardization of commonly used search terms. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
8 

(b) VEHICLE RECALL INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall require that motor vehicle recall information be made available to consumers on the Internet, searchable 

by vehicle identification number in a format that preserves consumer privacy. The 

Secretary may initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require that such information be 

available on manufacturer websites or through other reasonable means. 

(c) ACCESSIBILITY OF MANUFACTURER COMMUNICATIONS.—Section 30166(f) of title 

49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, and make available on a publicly 

accessible Internet website,’’ after ‘‘Secretary of Transportation’’. 

SEC. 203. PROMOTION OF VEHICLE DEFECT REPORTING. 

Section 32302 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(d) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFECT REPORTING INFORMATION.— ‘‘(1) RULEMAKING REQUIRED.—Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 the Secretary shall prescribe regulations that 

require passenger motor vehicle manufacturers to affix, in the glove compartment or in another readily accessible location on the vehicle, a sticker, decal, 

or other device that provides, in simple and understandable language, information about how to submit a safety-related motor vehicle defect complaint with 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The information may not 

be placed on the label required by section 3 of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1232). 

‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—The requirements established under paragraph (1) shall 

apply to passenger motor vehicles manufactured in model years beginning more 

than 1 year after the date on which a final rule is published under that paragraph.’’. 

SEC. 204. NHTSA HOTLINE FOR MANUFACTURER, DEALER, AND MECHANIC PERSONNEL. 

The Secretary shall— 

(1) establish a means by which mechanics, automobile dealership personnel, 

and automobile manufacturer personnel may contact the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration directly and confidentially regarding potential 

passenger automobile safety defects; and 

(2) publicize the means for contacting the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration in a manner that targets mechanics, automobile dealership personnel, and manufacturer personnel. 

SEC. 205. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NHTSA REPORTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 30166 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(o) CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTS.—The Secretary shall require, for 

each company submitting information to the Secretary in response to a request for 

information in a safety or compliance investigation under this chapter, that a senior 

official responsible for safety residing in the United States certify that— 

‘‘(1) the signing official has reviewed the submission; and 

‘‘(2) based on the official’s knowledge, the submission does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in 

order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which 

such statements were made, not misleading.’’. 

(b) CIVIL PENALTY.—Section 30165(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘A person’’ in paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘Except as provided 

in paragraph (4), a person’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following: 

‘‘(4) FALSE, MISLEADING, OR INCOMPLETE REPORTS.—A person who knowingly 

and willfully submits materially false, misleading, or incomplete information to 

the Secretary, after certifying the same information as accurate and complete 

under the certification process established pursuant to section 30166(o), shall be 

subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of daily violations is $5,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 206. APPEAL OF DEFECT PETITION REJECTION. 

Section 30162 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(f) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—A decision of the Secretary to deny a petition filed under 

subsection (a)(2) of this section is agency action subject to judicial review under 

chapter 7 of title 5, and such action shall not be considered committed to agency 

discretion within the meaning of section 701(a)(2) of such title. A person aggrieved 

by the denial of a petition may obtain judicial review by filing an action in the court 

of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has 

its principal place of business or the United States Court of Appeals for the District 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
9 

of Columbia Circuit not more than 180 days after notice of the denial of the petition 

is published in the Federal Register.’’. 

SEC. 207. DEADLINES FOR RULEMAKING. 

If the Secretary determines that a deadline for a final rule under this Act, or an 

amendment made by this Act, cannot be met, the Secretary shall— 

(1) notify the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

and explain why that deadline cannot be met; and 

(2) establish a new deadline for that rule. 

SEC. 208. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

(a) STUDY ON EARLY WARNING DATA.—Not later than 3, 5, 7, and 9 years after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall complete a study of the utilization of Early Warning 

data by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Each study 

shall evaluate the following: 

(1) The number and type of requests for information made by the NHTSA 

based on data received in the Early Warning Reporting system. 

(2) The number of safety defect investigations opened by NHTSA using any 

information reported to the agency through the Early Warning Reporting system. 

(3) The nature and vehicle defect category of all such safety defect investigations. 

(4) The number of investigations described in paragraph (2) that are subsequently closed without further action. 

(5) The duration of each investigation described in paragraph (2) 

(6) The percentage of each investigation that result in a finding of a safety 

defect or recall by the agency. 

(7) Other information the Office of the Inspector General deems appropriate. 

(b) REPORT ON OPERATIONS OF THE CENTER FOR VEHICLE ELECTRONICS AND

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the operations of the Center for Vehicle Electronics and Emerging Technologies. Such report shall include information about the accomplishments of the Center, the role the Center plays in integrating and aggregating expertise across NHTSA, and priorities of the Center over 

the next 5 years. 

(c) STUDY OF CRASH DATA COLLECTION.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a report regarding the quality of 

data collected through the National Automotive Sampling System, including the 

Special Crash Investigations, and recommendations for improvements to this data 

collection program. The report shall include information regarding— 

(1) the analysis and conclusions NHTSA can reach based on the amount of 

data collected in a given year, and the additional analysis and conclusions 

NHTSA could reach if more crash investigations were conducted each year; 

(2) the number of investigations per year that would allow for optimal data 

analysis and crash information; 

(3) the results of a comprehensive review of the data elements collected from 

each crash to determine if additional data should be collected; which review 

shall include input from interested parties, such as suppliers, automakers, safety advocates, the medical community and research organizations; and 

(4) the resources that would be necessary for NHTSA to implement these recommendations. 

(d) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—Each report shall be submitted to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate upon completion. 

SEC. 209. RESTRICTION ON COVERED VEHICLE SAFETY OFFICIALS. 

(a) AMENDMENT.—Subchapter I of chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 30107. Restriction on covered vehicle safety officials 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For a period of 1 year after the termination of his or her service or employment, a covered vehicle safety official shall not knowingly make, with 

the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any officer or 

employee of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration on behalf 

of any manufacturer subject to regulation under this chapter in connection with any 

matter involving vehicle safety on which such person seeks official action by any officer or employee of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
10 

‘‘(b) NO EFFECT ON SECTION 207.—This section does not expand, contract, or otherwise affect the application of any waiver or criminal penalties under section 207 

of title 18, United States Code. 

‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to covered vehicle safety officials 

who terminate service or employment with the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration after the date of enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

of 2010. 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘covered vehicle safety official’ means 

any officer or employee of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration who, within the final 12 months of his or her service or employment with the 

agency, serves or served in a technical or legal capacity, and whose job responsibilities include or included vehicle safety defect investigation, vehicle safety compliance, vehicle safety rulemaking, or vehicle safety research, and any officer or employee of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration serving in a 

supervisory or management capacity over such officers or employees. 

‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR DETAILEES.—For purposes of this section, a person who is 

detailed from one department, agency, or other entity to another department, agency, or other entity shall, during the period such person is detailed, be deemed to 

be an officer or employee of both departments, agencies, or such entities. 

‘‘(f) EXCEPTION FOR TESTIMONY.—Nothing in this section shall prevent an individual from giving testimony under oath, or from making statements required to be 

made under penalty of perjury.’’. 

(b) CIVIL PENALTY.—Section 30165(a) of title 49, United States Code, as amended 

by section 205, is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) SECTION 30107.—A person who violates section 30107 shall be subject to 

a civil penalty of not more than $55,000.’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for chapter 301 of title 49, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 30106 

the following: 

‘‘30107. Restriction on covered vehicle safety officials.’’. 

TITLE III—FUNDING 

SEC. 301. VEHICLE SAFETY USER FEE. 

(a) AMENDMENT.—Subchapter I of chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 30108. Vehicle safety user fee 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is established in the Treasury of the United 

States a separate account for the deposit of fees under this section to be known as 

the Vehicle Safety Fund. 

‘‘(b) ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF VEHICLE SAFETY FEES.—Beginning 1 year 

after the date of enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, the Secretary 

shall assess and collect, in accordance with this section, a vehicle safety user fee 

from the manufacturer for each motor vehicle that is certified as compliant with applicable motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to section 30115. 

‘‘(c) DEPOSIT.—The Secretary shall deposit any fees collected pursuant to subsection (b) into the Vehicle Safety Fund established by subsection (a). 

‘‘(d) USE.—Amounts in the Vehicle Safety Fund shall be available to the Secretary, as provided in subsection (i), for making expenditures to meet the obligations 

of the United States to carry out vehicle safety programs of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

‘‘(e) VEHICLE SAFETY USER FEE.— 

‘‘(1) FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD YEAR FEES.—The fee assessed under this section for the first three years shall be as follows: 

‘‘(A) $3 for each vehicle certified during the first year in which such fees 

are assessed. 

‘‘(B) $6 for each vehicle certified during the second year in which such 

fees are assessed. 

‘‘(C) $9 for each vehicle certified during the third year in which such fees 

are assessed. 

‘‘(2) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—The fee assessed under this section for each vehicle 

certified after the third year in which such fees are assessed shall be adjusted 

by the Secretary by notice published in the Federal Register to reflect the total 

percentage change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers for the 12 month period ending June 30 preceding the fiscal year 

for which fees are being established. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
11 

‘‘(3) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall require payment of fees under this section on a quarterly basis and not later than one quarter after the date on which 

the fee was assessed. 

‘‘(f) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, the Secretary shall promulgate rules governing 

the collection and payment of fees pursuant to this section. 

‘‘(g) LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Fees under this section shall not be collected for a fiscal 

year unless appropriations for vehicle safety programs of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration for such fiscal year (excluding the amount of fees 

appropriated for such fiscal year) are equal to or greater than the amount of 

appropriations for vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration for fiscal year 2010. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORITY.—If the Secretary does not assess fees under this section during any portion of a fiscal year because of paragraph (1), the Secretary may assess and collect such fees, without any modification in the rate, at a later date 

in such fiscal year notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e)(3) relating 

to the date fees are to be paid. 

‘‘(h) COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES.—In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section within 30 days after it is due, 

such fee shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject to subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31. 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to funds appropriated under 

section 30104, there is authorized to be appropriated from the Vehicle Safety Fund 

to the Secretary for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for each 

fiscal year in which fees are collected under subsection (b) an amount equal to the 

total amount collected during the previous fiscal year from fees assessed pursuant 

to this section. Such amounts are authorized to remain available until expended. 

‘‘(j) CREDITING AND AVAILABILITY OF FEES.—Fees authorized under subsection (b) 

shall be collected and available for obligation only to the extent and in the amount 

provided in advance in appropriations Acts.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 30106 the following: 

‘‘30108. Vehicle safety user fee.’’. 

SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 30104 of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$98,313,500’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘in each fiscal year beginning’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘and to carry out the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010— ‘‘(1) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

‘‘(2) $240,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and 

‘‘(3) $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.’’. 

TITLE IV—ENHANCED SAFETY AUTHORITIES 

SEC. 401. CIVIL PENALTIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 30165 of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

(A) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000’’; and 

(B) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)(3)— 

(A) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000’’ 

; and 

(B) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$200,000,000’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) RELEVANT FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT OF PENALTY OR COMPROMISE.— 

In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise, the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation shall be considered. This shall include, where appropriate, the nature of the defect or noncompliance, the severity of 

the risk of injury, the occurrence or absence of injury, the number of motor vehicles 

or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect or noncompliance, 

the existence of an imminent hazard, the appropriateness of such penalty in relation 

to the size of the business of the person charged, recognizing the potential for undue 

adverse economic impacts on small businesses, and such other factors as appropriate.’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
12 

(b) CIVIL PENALTY CRITERIA.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, and in accordance with the procedures of section 553 of title 5, United 

States Code, the Secretary shall issue a final regulation providing its interpretation 

of the penalty factors described in section 30165(c) of title 49, United States Code, 

as added by subsection (a). 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the 

imposition of penalties under section 30165 of title 49, United States Code, prior to 

the issuance of a final rule pursuant to subsection (b). 

SEC. 402. IMMINENT HAZARD AUTHORITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 30118(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) IMMINENT HAZARD ORDERS.—If the Secretary of Transportation in making 

a decision under subsection (a) also initially decides that such defect or noncompliance presents a substantial likelihood of death or serious injury to the 

public, the Secretary shall notify such manufacturer. The opportunity for the 

manufacturer to present information, views, and arguments in accordance with 

paragraph (1) shall be provided as soon as practicable but not later than 10 calendar days after the initial decision. The Secretary shall expedite proceedings 

for a decision and order under paragraph (1) and shall, as appropriate, issue 

an imminent hazard order.’’. 

(b) PROCEDURES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall issue procedures for the issuance and enforcement of imminent 

hazard orders under section 30118(b)(3) of title 49, United States Code (as added 

by subsection (a)), consistent with the provisions of chapter 301 of such title and 

the Administrative Procedures Act. 

TITLE V—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 501. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW. 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not publish a rule pursuant to section 30111 of title 

49, United States Code, that addresses the issue of preemption of State law seeking 

damages for personal injury, death, or property damage unless Congress expressly 

authorizes the Secretary to address such preemption. 

(b) PREEMPTION LANGUAGE.—Any language addressing the issue of preemption 

contained within regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 30111 of 

title 49, United States Code, during the years 2005 through 2008 shall not be considered in determining whether any such rule preempts any action under State law 

seeking damages for personal injury, death, or property damage unless Congress expressly authorizes the Secretary to address such preemption. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5381, the ‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010’’, was introduced on May 25, 2010, by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D–CA), Bobby 

L. Rush (D–IL), John D. Dingell (D–MI), Bart Stupak (D–MI), and 

Bruce Braley (D–IA), and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

The goal of H.R. 5381 is to improve auto safety and strengthen 

the vehicle safety programs at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). The bill has four key objectives: (1) improve electronics expertise at NHTSA and develop new vehicle 

safety standards; (2) increase transparency and accountability in 

auto safety; (3) provide additional resources to NHTSA; and (4) improve the enforcement authorities of NHTSA. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

NHTSA has broad jurisdiction relating to motor vehicles. The 

agency was established in 1970 with a mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic cost of crashes through education, research, safety standards, and enforcement of laws, regulations, and standards. NHTSA conducts crash data analysis, reVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
13 

1 Hearings held by the Committee on Energy and Commerce since the Toyota recalls began 

include: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on Response by Toyota and 

NHTSA to Incidents of Sudden Unintended Acceleration (Feb. 23, 2010); Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Hearing on NHTSA Oversight: The Road Ahead (Mar. 

11, 2010); Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Legislative Hearing 

on H.R. ll, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (May 6, 2010); Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on Update on Toyota and NHTSA’s Response to the Problem of Sudden 

Unintended Acceleration (May 20, 2010). In addition, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on auto safety in 2009. Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection, Auto Safety: Existing Mandates and Emerging Issues (May 

18, 2009). 

search, and rulemaking for vehicle safety, and is responsible for 

overseeing issues related to fuel economy, child car seat performance, and tire safety. NHTSA is also responsible for collecting consumer complaint data, investigating potential vehicle defects, and 

overseeing recalls of vehicles with safety defects. In addition, the 

agency administers grants to states to enforce laws requiring seat 

belts and prohibiting drunk driving. 

During the first half of 2010, increased public attention has focused on NHTSA’s enforcement role. Following several recalls of 

Toyota vehicles due to concerns about unintended acceleration, the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations and Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held hearings.1 During these hearings, concerns were raised about whether NHTSA has the resources and the 

capability to conduct in-depth investigations into new and complex 

systems in vehicles, and to evaluate manufacturers’ claims about 

the operations of their vehicles. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

2010 was drafted to address these and other concerns about the 

ability of NHTSA to ensure the safety of vehicles on the road. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 29, 2010, Reps. Waxman and Rush released a discussion draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. A hearing on 

the discussion draft was held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection on May 6, 2010. On May 20, 2010, 

the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

met in open markup session to consider a Committee print of the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. The Committee print was approved and forwarded favorably to the full Committee by a voice 

vote. 

On May 25, 2010, H.R. 5381, the ‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

2010’’, was introduced in the House by Reps. Waxman, Rush, Dingell, Stupak, and Braley of Iowa. The full Committee met in open 

markup session on May 25, 2010, to consider the legislation. Subsequently, the Committee agreed to order H.R. 5381 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a roll call vote of 31 yeas and 

21 nays. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. 

Waxman ordering H.R. 5381 reported to the House, amended, was 

approved by a record vote of 31 yeas and 21 nays. The following 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
14 

are the recorded votes taken during Committee consideration, including the names of those members voting for and against: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
15 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCInsert offset folio 17 here HR536.001
16 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCInsert offset folio 18 here HR536.002
17 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCInsert offset folio 19 here HR536.003
18 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCInsert offset folio 20 here HR536.004
19 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCInsert offset folio 21 here HR536.005
20 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee are reflected 

in the descriptive portions of this report, including the need to improve auto safety and strengthen vehicle safety programs. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Regarding compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own 

the estimate on H.R. 5381 prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the performance goals and objectives of 

H.R. 5381 are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including to improve auto safety and strengthen vehicle safety programs. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 5381. Article I, section 8, clauses 3 and 18 of the Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power to enact 

this law. 

EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS

H.R. 5381 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

APPLICABILITY OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to terms and conditions of employment or access to public 

services and accommodations. H.R. 5381 contains no such provisions. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended by section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement on whether 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
21 

the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee adopts as its own the 

estimates of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate of H.R. 5381 prepared by the Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

following cost estimate for H.R. 5381 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

JUNE 25, 2010. 

Hon. HENRY A. WAXMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5381, the Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act of 2010. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5381—Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 

Summary: CBO estimates that H.R. 5381 would authorize net 

appropriations of $1.1 billion over the 2011–2015 period for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish 

new safety standards for certain vehicles, to complete safety research, and to make certain information more readily available to 

the public. The bill would authorize fees to be levied on new vehicles offered for sale in the United States. Under the bill, those fees 

would be collected only if provided for in appropriation acts, and 

any collections would be credited to those appropriation acts. On 

balance, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $876 

million over the 2010–2015 period, assuming appropriation of the 

necessary amounts. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation 

could affect revenues. The bill would increase certain civil penalties 

paid by vehicle manufacturers; such collections are classified as 

revenues in the budget. Based on information from NHTSA about 

historical penalty collections, CBO estimates that the expanded 

penalties would increase revenues by $1 million per year over the 

2011–2020 period. 

H.R. 5381 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
22 

empt state laws relating to the safety standards for motor vehicles 

established in the bill. While that preemption would limit the application of state law, CBO estimates that it would impose no duty 

on state, local, or tribal governments that would result in additional spending. 

By placing new requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles, H.R. 5381 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Based on information from NHTSA and industry sources, 

CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates on privatesector entities would exceed the annual threshold established in 

UMRA for such mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually 

for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5381 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011– 

2015 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1

NHTSA Motor Safety Operations: 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................................... 200 240 280 285 291 1,296 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 116 193 247 275 286 1,117 

Vehicle Safety Fees (Offsetting Collections): 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................................... ¥21 ¥81 ¥134 ¥149 ¥153 ¥538 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... ¥21 ¥81 ¥134 ¥149 ¥153 ¥538 

Vehicle Safety Fees (Spending): 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................................... 0 21 81 134 149 385 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 0 12 52 101 132 297 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................. 179 180 227 270 287 1,143 

Estimated Outlays ................................................ 95 124 165 227 265 876 

Note: NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

1 CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5831 also would increase revenues by $1 million a year over the 2011–2020 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

5381 will be enacted in 2010 and that the authorized and estimated amounts will be appropriated each year. Estimates of spending are based on historical spending patterns for similar programs. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

CBO estimates that H.R. 5381 would authorize appropriations of 

about $1.1 billion over the 2011–2015 period for certain NHTSA operations. The bill also would establish fees levied on new vehicles 

offered for sale in the United States. Those fees would be credited 

against appropriations. As a result, assuming appropriation of the 

specified and estimated amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $876 million over the 2010–2015 period. 

NHTSA Motor Safety Operations. H.R. 5381 would require 

NHTSA to create new and update existing safety regulations that 

apply to motor vehicles. The agency would be required to complete 

new research or speed up other research on several topics related 

to the safety of motor vehicles. NHTSA would also be required to 

make certain information more readily available to the public, expand the capabilities of its existing telephone call center, and submit several new reports to the Congress. The bill would specifically 

authorize the appropriation of $720 million over the 2011–2013 peVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
23 

riod. Because the legislation would authorize appropriation of 

amounts collected from the vehicle safety user fees over the 2012– 

2015 period, CBO assumes that NHTSA’s motor safety operations 

would continue after 2013. Based on information from NHTSA and 

assuming appropriation of the specified amounts and the amounts 

estimated to be necessary, CBO estimates that those operations 

would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2010–2015 period. 

Vehicle Safety User Fee. The bill would establish a ‘‘vehicle safety user fee’’ that would be imposed on manufacturers of new vehicles certified to meet safety standards for sale in the United States. 

The bill specifies that the fee would be $3 per vehicle in 2011, increasing to $9 per vehicle in 2013. After 2013, the amount of the 

fee would be determined by the Department of Transportation. Because the fee would be collected and available for obligation only 

to the extent and in the amount provided in advance in appropriation acts, these fees would be treated as offsetting collections (a 

credit against discretionary spending). 

Starting in 2012, the bill would authorize the appropriation of 

the amounts collected from fees in the prior fiscal year. Based on 

industry forecasts, CBO estimates that the number of vehicles offered for sale in the United States will be about 12 million in 2010 

and grow to about 17 million by 2015. Based on this information 

and assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts, CBO estimates that the fee collections would total $538 million over the 

2011–2015 period. Of those amounts, we estimate that $385 million 

would be authorized to be appropriated over the 2012–2015 period. 

Based on the historical spending pattern for NHTSA programs, 

CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would result in 

net discretionary savings of $241 million over the 2010–2015 period 

because spending would lag behind the expected fee collections (as 

shown in the table above). 

Revenues 

H.R. 5381 would increase civil penalties paid by vehicle manufacturers who violate certain regulations governing motor vehicle safety. Collections of civil fines are recorded as revenues and deposited 

in the Treasury. Based on information from NHTSA about historical penalty collections and the number and type of violations of 

safety regulations, CBO estimates that the expanded penalties 

would increase revenues by $1 million per year over the 2011–2020 

period. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in revenues that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
24 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 5381 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE ON MAY 25, 2010 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010– 

2015 

2010– 

2020 

NET DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Impact 0 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥5 ¥10 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

5381 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA 

because it would preempt state laws relating to the safety standards for motor vehicles established in the bill. While that preemption would limit the application of state law, CBO estimates that 

it would impose no duty on state, local, or tribal governments that 

would result in additional spending. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: By placing new requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles, H.R. 5381 would impose 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that 

the aggregate cost of the mandates on private-sector entities would 

exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for such mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation) in at 

least one of the first five years after the bill is enacted. 

Safety user fees 

The bill would require manufacturers to pay a user fee for each 

motor vehicle certified and delivered for sale in the United States. 

The user fee would be set at $3 per vehicle in 2011, increasing to 

$9 per vehicle in 2013, and subsequently would be adjusted for inflation as determined by the Department of Transportation. CBO 

estimates that the fees paid by manufacturers would amount to 

$538 million over the first five years the mandate is in effect. 

Stability control systems 

H.R. 5381 would require manufacturers of large commercial 

motor vehicles to comply with new performance standards that are 

consistent with stability-enhancing technologies that address rollovers and loss-of-control crashes. Based on information from 

NHTSA, CBO expects that manufacturers would probably have to 

install stability control systems in new tractor trailers and 

motorcoaches to comply with the new standard. 

Based on information from NHTSA and industry sources on the 

number of tractor trailers produced per year, the costs of stabilityenhancing technology, and the proportion of vehicles that already 

include such technology, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate for manufacturers of tractor-trailers could amount to at least 

$100 million per year. 

According to information from industry sources, all new 

motorcoaches already include stability-enhancing technology. Thus, 

CBO expects that the incremental cost to motorcoach manufacturers would be minimal, if any. 

Passenger motor vehicle safety standards 

The bill would direct NHTSA to establish safety standards for 

such things as configuring and labeling gear-shift controls, controlVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
25 

ling vehicles with push-button ignition systems, and fail-safe systems for accelerator control systems. NHTSA estimates that 12 million to 17 million passenger motor vehicles will be offered for sale 

annually over the next five years. Based on information from 

NHTSA and industry sources about the cost of potential requirements, CBO estimates that the cost to the industry to comply with 

the new standards could be significant. Because the types of safety 

requirements implemented would be determined by future regulations, CBO cannot estimate the cost of the mandates. 

Event data recorders 

The bill would require manufacturers to install event data recorders (EDRs) in all passenger vehicles sold in the United States 

beginning in model year 2015. EDRs record information from a vehicle before, during, and after a safety event such as when an air 

bag is deployed. Information from industry sources indicates that 

it would cost each manufacturer $6 million in development costs 

and $5.50 per car to install EDRs that meet existing standards. 

However, EDRs would have to meet standards to be established by 

NHTSA related to the types of events recorded, the length of the 

recording for each event, and the types of data stored. Because 

such standards would be determined by future regulations, CBO 

cannot estimate the cost of this mandate. 

Hybrid or electric vehicle sounds 

H.R. 5381 would require hybrid and electric vehicles to generate 

sounds that alert blind pedestrians when such a vehicle is operating nearby. Based on information from NHTSA and industry 

sources on the number of vehicles that could be affected and the 

potential cost of installing such devices, CBO estimates that the 

cost of this mandate would be small relative to the annual threshold. 

Other mandates 

CBO estimates that the costs of several private-sector mandates 

imposed by the bill would be minimal. For example, the legislation 

would require manufacturers of motor vehicles to: 

• Make information about recalls available to customers on 

the internet; 

• Place information about submitting a safety-related complaint to NHTSA in each automobile; and 

• Have a senior official responsible for safety residing in the 

United States who would certify certain information submitted 

to the Department of Transportation. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Sarah Puro; Federal 

Revenues: Zachary Epstein; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Samuel 

Wice. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
26 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

Section 1 designates that the short title may be cited as the 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010’’. The section also provides the 

table of contents for the Act. 

Section 2. Definitions 

Section 2 defines ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’ for purposes of the 

bill. The term is defined to mean a motor vehicle that is less than 

10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight, and specifically excludes motorcycles, trailers, and low speed vehicles. The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA). 

TITLE I—VEHICLE ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY STANDARDS 

Section 101. Electronics and engineering expertise 

Section 101 establishes a new Center for Vehicle Electronics and 

Emerging Technologies within NHTSA to strengthen expertise in 

new technologies across all of the agency’s vehicle safety components, and to study the use of lightweight materials in vehicles. In 

addition, the section creates an honors recruitment program at 

NHTSA for engineers with an interest in vehicle safety. The Secretary is authorized to provide stipends for fellowships, and is directed to develop a plan to target recruitment at colleges and universities that have historically served minority populations. 

Section 102. Brake override standard 

Section 102 requires NHTSA to issue a federal motor vehicle 

safety standard to mitigate unintended acceleration by requiring 

that all vehicles be equipped with a technology that would allow a 

vehicle to come to a full stop with normal braking pressure even 

if the accelerator is in operation. 

Section 103. Accelerator control systems 

Section 103 requires NHTSA to update its federal motor vehicle 

safety standard governing accelerator control systems to require 

that redundancies be built into electronic throttle control systems 

to enable a driver to maintain control in the event that there is a 

failure or malfunction in the system. 

Section 104. Pedal placement standard 

Section 104 directs NHTSA to consider issuing a federal motor 

vehicle safety standard to prevent pedal entrapment as a source of 

unintended acceleration by establishing minimum clearances for 

foot pedals with respect to other pedals, the vehicle floor, and any 

other potential obstructions. If NHTSA determines that a new rule 

would not be reasonable, practical, or appropriate, the agency must 

submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees. 

Section 105. Electronic systems performance standard 

Section 105 directs NHTSA to consider issuing a federal motor 

vehicle safety standard establishing minimum performance standVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
27 

ards for electronic systems in passenger vehicles. The section directs NHTSA to consider the findings of a study of electronic vehicle controls currently being undertaken by the National Academy 

of Sciences at the request of NHTSA. The section gives NHTSA discretion to consider rules relating to electronic components, the 

interaction of electronic components, or the effects of the surrounding environment on electronic systems. If NHTSA determines 

that a new rule would not be reasonable, practical, or appropriate, 

the agency must submit a report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. 

Section 106. Push-button ignition systems standard 

Section 106 requires NHTSA to issue a federal motor vehicle 

safety standard to establish the standard operation and performance of push-button ignition systems when used by drivers in an 

emergency situation when the vehicle is in motion. 

Section 107. Transmission configuration standard 

Section 107 requires NHTSA to update its federal motor vehicle 

safety standard for transmission configuration to improve the recognition of the gear selector position for drivers, including drivers 

unfamiliar with the vehicle. 

Section 108. Vehicle event data recorders 

Subsection 108(a) requires NHTSA issue a rule requiring that all 

vehicles be equipped with an event data recorder by model year 

2015 that meets the requirements of the existing voluntary standard issued by NHTSA. Subsection (b) requires that NHTSA issue 

a federal motor vehicle safety standard for the performance of 

event data recorders required to be installed in new vehicles. Subsection (c) establishes specifications for the rule to be issued under 

(b), including a requirement that the event data recorders store information for a sufficient period to cover an entire crash, including 

vehicle rollovers, a requirement that the data be accessible with 

commercially available equipment in a specified format and available through a standardized data access port; and a direction that 

NHTSA consider requiring such event data recorders to store additional data elements beyond those required under its existing voluntary standard. Subsection (d) establishes limitations on the retrieval of data collected by event data recorders with regard to 

ownership, privacy, and tamper resistance. The subsection provides 

that the data in a data recorder is the property of the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle. Subsection (e) calls on NHTSA to require 

that manufacturers disclose to the first purchaser of a vehicle, the 

existence and purpose of the event data recorder. Subsection (f) ensures that NHTSA has access to data contained in vehicle diagnostic systems and event data recorders in the course of an inspection conducted during an investigation pursuant to section 30166(c) 

of Title 49, United States Code. 

Section 109. Commercial motor vehicle rollover prevention and 

crash mitigation 

Section 109 directs NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking, within six 

months of enactment of the bill, to establish a federal motor vehicle 

safety standard for rollover prevention in heavy vehicles. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
28 

2The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act 

of 2000, Pub. L. 106–414. 

Section 110. Minimum sound requirements 

Section 110 directs NHTSA to issue a federal motor vehicle safety standard establishing a minimum sound that hybrid and electric 

vehicles must emit in order to enable blind and other pedestrians 

to detect a moving vehicle. 

Section 111. Driver alcohol detection system research 

Section 111 authorizes $8 million per year for five years to support research on advanced alcohol detection technology as part of 

the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS), a program that is currently being run by NHTSA in collaboration with 

outside organizations. The Committee recognizes the lifesaving potential of equipping vehicles with technology to detect whether a 

driver is at or above the legal limit of .08 Blood Alcohol Content 

(BAC), and, if so, prevent the car from starting. The legislation 

only relates to the research and development of this technology. It 

is the Committee’s intent that such technology must be developed 

to accurately detect the statutory .08 BAC limit and must be nonintrusive, fast, reliable, repeatable, and cost effective before its voluntary deployment can be considered for the general public. The 

Committee believes this research will determine whether or not 

such technology is feasible. 

TITLE II—TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Section 201. Public availability of early warning data 

Section 201 changes the presumption of disclosure under the 

TREAD Act 2 to require that information submitted to NHTSA by 

manufacturers through the Early Warning Reporting system be 

disclosed unless it is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act. The provision further requires NHTSA to rewrite 

the agency’s rule on ‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ with a 

presumption in favor of maximum public availability of Early 

Warning Reporting information. It is the Committee’s intent to increase public access to information that NHTSA has improperly 

designated as confidential business information pursuant to section 

553(b)(4) of title 5, U.S. Code in the past. Information that meets 

the definition of confidential business information under that section would continue to be eligible for withholding. 

Section 202. Improved NHTSA vehicle safety database 

Section 202(a) requires NHTSA to improve public accessibility of 

information posted to its website, including by ensuring that all 

data is searchable and can be aggregated and downloaded. Section 

202(b) calls on NHTSA to require that vehicle recall information be 

made available to consumers on the Internet, searchable by vehicle 

identification number in a format that preserves consumer privacy. 

The subsection allows NHTSA to require that this information be 

posted on manufacturer websites or through other reasonable 

means. Recognizing the legitimate use of a complete Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for vehicle history research, it is the Committee’s intent that the format ensures consumer privacy by not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
29 

posting complete VIN numbers on a public website. Section 202(c) 

requires that manufacturers make available to the public the copies of communications about defects and noncompliance that they 

provide to NHTSA pursuant to section 30166(f) of title 49, U.S. 

Code. 

Section 203. Promotion of vehicle defect reporting 

Section 203 requires that all manufacturers affix, in the glove 

compartment or in another readily accessible location in the car, a 

sticker or other means that provides information about how to submit a safety-related complaint to NHTSA. 

Section 204. NHTSA hotline for manufacturer, dealer, and mechanic personnel 

Section 204 requires that NHTSA establish a hotline by which 

manufacturer, dealer, and mechanic personnel can directly report 

potential safety defects on a confidential basis. 

Section 205. Corporate responsibility for NHTSA reports 

Section 205 requires that a manufacturer have a senior official 

in the United States who is responsible for safety certify the accuracy and completeness of all responses to NHTSA’s requests for information relating to safety investigations. This section augments 

the existing criminal penalties for making false statements by establishing civil penalties for knowingly providing false, misleading, 

or incomplete reports. 

Section 206. Appeal of defect petition rejection 

Section 206 allows an individual whose petition for an investigation into a potential defect is denied to obtain judicial review of 

that decision in the appropriate court of appeals. 

Section 207. Deadlines for rulemaking 

Section 207 establishes procedures for NHTSA to notify Congress 

if any deadline for a rulemaking provided in the bill cannot be met. 

Section 208. Reports to Congress 

Section 208 directs the Secretary to prepare reports to Congress 

regarding the use of Early Warning Reporting data and regarding 

the quality and quantity of data collected through the National 

Automotive Sampling System. The section further directs the Inspector General to report to Congress on the operations of the Center for Vehicle Electronics and Emerging Technologies. 

Section 209. Restriction on covered vehicle safety officials 

Section 209 limits the revolving door between NHTSA and the 

auto industry by restricting certain post-employment activities of 

NHTSA employees responsible for vehicle safety. The section defines ‘‘covered vehicle safety official’’ to mean any officer or employee of NHTSA who, within the final 12 months of his or her 

service or employment with the agency, serves or served in a technical or legal capacity, and whose job responsibilities include or included vehicle safety defect investigation, vehicle safety compliance, vehicle safety rulemaking, or vehicle safety research, and any 

officer or employee of NHTSA serving in a supervisory or manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
30 

ment capacity over such officers or employees. Such officials are 

prevented from making, for one year following the end of their employment, any communication to or appearance before NHTSA on 

behalf of a manufacturer subject to regulation by NHTSA in connection with any matter involving vehicle safety on which such person seeks official action by any officer or employee of NHTSA. 

TITLE III—FUNDING 

Section 301. Vehicle safety user fee 

Section 301 establishes a vehicle safety user fee paid by the vehicle manufacturer for each vehicle certified to meet the federal 

motor vehicle safety standards for sale in the United States. This 

fee begins at $3 per vehicle and increases to $9 per vehicle after 

three years. The fee would supplement existing appropriations and 

support NHTSA’s vehicle safety programs. 

Section 302. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 302 authorizes appropriations for NHTSA’s vehicle safety 

programs. The authorization would provide $200 million in 

FY2011, $240 million in FY2012, and $280 million in FY2013. 

TITLE IV—ENHANCED SAFETY AUTHORITIES 

Section 401. Civil penalties 

Section 401 increases the civil penalty NHTSA can seek per violation from the current $5,000 to $25,000, and sets a maximum 

civil penalty of $200 million. 

Section 402. Imminent hazard authority 

Section 402 provides NHTSA with the authority to expedite a recall order in the case of an imminent hazard of death or serious 

injury. Independent experts consulted by the Committee have expressed the view that judicial review of an order under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 30118(b), including an imminent hazard order under new paragraph (3), would occur under 5 U.S.C. § 706 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, which has an arbitrary and capricious standard of 

review. In litigation that occurred more than 35 years ago, U.S. v. 

General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420 (D.C. Cir. 1975), the D.C. Circuit appears to have taken the position that enforcement of section 

30118 orders under 49 U.S.C. § 30163 would be in a de novo enforcement proceeding, rather than in a challenge to the agency’s 

order based upon a review of the agency’s administrative record 

underlying the order. The agency, for reasons that are not stated, 

did not challenge the Court’s approach. Given developments in administrative law since that decision, there is uncertainty about the 

appropriate procedures the agency should follow in issuing imminent hazard orders and the standard of review that courts should 

apply in enforcement actions. New subparagraph (B) of section 

30118(b)(3) is intended to provide the agency an opportunity to 

take a fresh look at this issue. The procedures that the agency promulgates must be consistent with both the requirements of the bill 

and the Administrative Procedure Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
31 

TITLE V—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

Section 501. Preemption of State law 

Section 501 overturns preemption provisions in NHTSA regulations promulgated during the years 2005 through 2008 and prevents NHTSA from explicitly preempting state tort law without 

congressional direction. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The following amendments were adopted by the full Committee 

during consideration of H.R. 5381 and are also described in the section-by-section analysis of the legislation. Each amendment was approved by a voice vote of the Committee: 

Mr. Waxman offered an amendment that contained four provisions. The amendment directs the newly established Center for 

Electronics and Emerging Technologies to study lightweight materials, including by implementing the Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicle Safety Roadmap. The amendment limits the Center to 

spending 20% or less of its budget on this aspect of its work. The 

amendment inserts a new section 109 into the bill that directs 

NHTSA to issue safety standards for rollover prevention in heavy 

vehicles in a timely manner. The amendment inserts a new section 

209 into the bill that limits the revolving door between NHTSA and 

the auto industry by restricting certain post-employment activities 

of NHTSA employees responsible for vehicle safety. And the 

amendment inserts a new section 501 into the bill that overturns 

preemption provisions in NHTSA regulations during the years 

2005–2008 and prevents NHTSA from explicitly preempting state 

tort law without congressional direction. 

Mr. Stearns offered an amendment that directs the Secretary to 

issue a standard establishing a minimum sound that hybrid and 

electric vehicles must emit in order to enable blind and other pedestrians to detect a moving vehicle. 

Mr. Sarbanes offered an amendment to fund research into the 

feasibility and potential benefits of in-vehicle technology to prevent 

alcohol impaired driving. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VI—MOTOR VEHICLE and DRIVER 

PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
32 

PART A—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 301—MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL 

Sec. 

30101. Purpose and policy. 

* * * * * * * 

30107. Restriction on covered vehicle safety officials. 

30108. Vehicle safety user fee. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

§ 30104. Authorization of appropriations 

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 

ø$98,313,500¿ for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to carry out this part øin each fiscal year beginning in fiscal 

year 1999 and ending in fiscal year 2001.¿ and to carry out the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010— 

(1) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) $240,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and 

(3) $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 30107. Restriction on covered vehicle safety officials 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For a period of 1 year after the termination of 

his or her service or employment, a covered vehicle safety official 

shall not knowingly make, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any officer or employee of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration on behalf of 

any manufacturer subject to regulation under this chapter in connection with any matter involving vehicle safety on which such person seeks official action by any officer or employee of the National 

Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 

(b) NO EFFECT ON SECTION 207.—This section does not expand, 

contract, or otherwise affect the application of any waiver or criminal penalties under section 207 of title 18, United States Code. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to covered vehicle 

safety officials who terminate service or employment with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration after the date 

of enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. 

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered vehicle safety 

official’’ means any officer or employee of the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration who, within the final 12 

months of his or her service or employment with the agency, serves 

or served in a technical or legal capacity, and whose job responsibilities include or included vehicle safety defect investigation, vehicle 

safety compliance, vehicle safety rulemaking, or vehicle safety research, and any officer or employee of the National Highway TransVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
33 

portation Safety Administration serving in a supervisory or management capacity over such officers or employees. 

(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR DETAILEES.—For purposes of this section, 

a person who is detailed from one department, agency, or other entity to another department, agency, or other entity shall, during the 

period such person is detailed, be deemed to be an officer or employee of both departments, agencies, or such entities. 

(f) EXCEPTION FOR TESTIMONY.—Nothing in this section shall prevent an individual from giving testimony under oath, or from making statements required to be made under penalty of perjury. 

§ 30108. Vehicle safety user fee 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States a separate account for the deposit of fees 

under this section to be known as the Vehicle Safety Fund. 

(b) ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF VEHICLE SAFETY FEES.—Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, the Secretary shall assess and collect, in accordance 

with this section, a vehicle safety user fee from the manufacturer for 

each motor vehicle that is certified as compliant with applicable 

motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to section 30115. 

(c) DEPOSIT.—The Secretary shall deposit any fees collected pursuant to subsection (b) into the Vehicle Safety Fund established by 

subsection (a). 

(d) USE.—Amounts in the Vehicle Safety Fund shall be available 

to the Secretary, as provided in subsection (i), for making expenditures to meet the obligations of the United States to carry out vehicle 

safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(e) VEHICLE SAFETY USER FEE.— 

(1) FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD YEAR FEES.—The fee assessed 

under this section for the first three years shall be as follows: (A) $3 for each vehicle certified during the first year in 

which such fees are assessed. 

(B) $6 for each vehicle certified during the second year in 

which such fees are assessed. 

(C) $9 for each vehicle certified during the third year in 

which such fees are assessed. 

(2) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—The fee assessed under this section 

for each vehicle certified after the third year in which such fees 

are assessed shall be adjusted by the Secretary by notice published in the Federal Register to reflect the total percentage 

change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers for the 12 month period ending June 30 preceding 

the fiscal year for which fees are being established. 

(3) PAYMENT.—The Secretary shall require payment of fees 

under this section on a quarterly basis and not later than one 

quarter after the date on which the fee was assessed. 

(f) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, the Secretary shall 

promulgate rules governing the collection and payment of fees pursuant to this section. 

(g) LIMITATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Fees under this section shall not be collected for a fiscal year unless appropriations for vehicle safety 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
34 

programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for such fiscal year (excluding the amount of fees appropriated for such fiscal year) are equal to or greater than the 

amount of appropriations for vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 

2010. 

(2) AUTHORITY.—If the Secretary does not assess fees under 

this section during any portion of a fiscal year because of paragraph (1), the Secretary may assess and collect such fees, without any modification in the rate, at a later date in such fiscal 

year notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e)(3) relating 

to the date fees are to be paid. 

(h) COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES.—In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section 

within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall be treated as a claim 

of the United States Government subject to subchapter II of chapter 

37 of title 31. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to funds appropriated under section 30104, there is authorized to be appropriated from the Vehicle Safety Fund to the Secretary for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for each fiscal year in 

which fees are collected under subsection (b) an amount equal to the 

total amount collected during the previous fiscal year from fees assessed pursuant to this section. Such amounts are authorized to remain available until expended. 

(j) CREDITING AND AVAILABILITY OF FEES.—Fees authorized under 

subsection (b) shall be collected and available for obligation only to 

the extent and in the amount provided in advance in appropriations 

Acts. 

SUBCHAPTER II—STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 30118. Notification of defects and noncompliance 

(a) * * * 

(b) DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS.—(1) 

* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) IMMINENT HAZARD ORDERS.—If the Secretary of Transportation in making a decision under subsection (a) also initially 

decides that such defect or noncompliance presents a substantial likelihood of death or serious injury to the public, the Secretary shall notify such manufacturer. The opportunity for the 

manufacturer to present information, views, and arguments in 

accordance with paragraph (1) shall be provided as soon as 

practicable but not later than 10 calendar days after the initial 

decision. The Secretary shall expedite proceedings for a decision 

and order under paragraph (1) and shall, as appropriate, issue 

an imminent hazard order. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IV—ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
35 

§ 30162. Petitions by interested persons for standards and 

enforcement 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—A decision of the Secretary to deny a petition filed under subsection (a)(2) of this section is agency action subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, and such action 

shall not be considered committed to agency discretion within the 

meaning of section 701(a)(2) of such title. A person aggrieved by the 

denial of a petition may obtain judicial review by filing an action 

in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which 

the person resides or has its principal place of business or the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

not more than 180 days after notice of the denial of the petition is 

published in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 30165. Civil penalty 

(a) CIVIL PENALTIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A person that violates any of section 30112, 

30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(d), 30125(c), 30127, or 

30141 through 30147, or a regulation prescribed thereunder, is 

liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of 

not more than ø$5,000¿ $25,000 for each violation. A separate 

violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform 

an act required by any of those sections. The maximum penalty 

under this subsection for a related series of violations is 

ø$15,000,000¿ $200,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) SECTION 30166.—øA person¿ Except as provided in paragraph (4), a person who violates section 30166 or a regulation 

prescribed under that section is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty for failing or refusing to allow 

or perform an act required under that section or regulation. 

The maximum penalty under this paragraph is ø$5,000¿ 

$25,000 per violation per day. The maximum penalty under 

this paragraph for a related series of daily violations is 

ø$15,000,000¿ $200,000,000. 

(4) FALSE, MISLEADING, OR INCOMPLETE REPORTS.—A person 

who knowingly and willfully submits materially false, misleading, or incomplete information to the Secretary, after certifying the same information as accurate and complete under the 

certification process established pursuant to section 30166(o), 

shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per 

day. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related 

series of daily violations is $5,000,000. 

(5) SECTION 30107.—A person who violates section 30107 shall 

be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $55,000. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise, the appropriateness of the penalty or comVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
36 

promise to the size of the business of the person charged and the 

gravity of the violation shall be considered.¿ 

(c) RELEVANT FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT OF PENALTY OR

COMPROMISE.—In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise, the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation shall be considered. This shall include, where appropriate, the 

nature of the defect or noncompliance, the severity of the risk of injury, the occurrence or absence of injury, the number of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment distributed with the defect 

or noncompliance, the existence of an imminent hazard, the appropriateness of such penalty in relation to the size of the business of 

the person charged, recognizing the potential for undue adverse economic impacts on small businesses, and such other factors as appropriate. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 30166. Inspections, investigations, and records 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) MATTERS THAT CAN BE INSPECTED AND IMPOUNDMENT.—In 

carrying out this chapter, an officer or employee designated by the 

Secretary of Transportation— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) at reasonable times, in a reasonable way, and on display 

of proper credentials and written notice to an owner, operator, 

or agent in charge, may— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) inspect with reasonable promptness that vehicle or 

equipment, including any electronic data contained within 

the vehicle’s diagnostic system or event data recorder; and 

* * * * * * * 

(f) PROVIDING COPIES OF COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT DEFECTS AND

NONCOMPLIANCE.—A manufacturer shall give the Secretary of 

Transportation, and make available on a publicly accessible Internet website, a true or representative copy of each communication to 

the manufacturer’s dealers or to owners or purchasers of a motor 

vehicle or replacement equipment produced by the manufacturer 

about a defect or noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter in a vehicle or equipment that 

is sold or serviced. 

* * * * * * * 

(m) EARLY WARNING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) HANDLING AND UTILIZATION OF REPORTING ELEMENTS.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(C) DISCLOSURE.—None of the information collected 

pursuant to the final rule promulgated under paragraph 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
37 

(1) shall be disclosed pursuant to section 30167(b) unless 

the Secretary determines the disclosure of such information will assist in carrying out sections 30117(b) and 30118 

through 30121.¿ 

(C) DISCLOSURE.—The information provided to the Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall be disclosed publicly unless exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of 

title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTS.—The Secretary 

shall require, for each company submitting information to the Secretary in response to a request for information in a safety or compliance investigation under this chapter, that a senior official responsible for safety residing in the United States certify that— 

(1) the signing official has reviewed the submission; and 

(2) based on the official’s knowledge, the submission does not 

contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state 

a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, 

in light of the circumstances under which such statements were 

made, not misleading. 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—INFORMATION, STANDARDS, AND 

REQUIREMENTS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 323—CONSUMER INFORMATION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 32302. Passenger motor vehicle information 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFECT REPORTING INFORMATION.— 

(1) RULEMAKING REQUIRED.—Within 1 year after the date of 

enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 the Secretary 

shall prescribe regulations that require passenger motor vehicle 

manufacturers to affix, in the glove compartment or in another 

readily accessible location on the vehicle, a sticker, decal, or 

other device that provides, in simple and understandable language, information about how to submit a safety-related motor 

vehicle defect complaint with the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. The information may not be placed on 

the label required by section 3 of the Automobile Information 

Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1232). 

(2) APPLICATION.—The requirements established under paragraph (1) shall apply to passenger motor vehicles manufactured 

in model years beginning more than 1 year after the date on 

which a final rule is published under that paragraph. 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
(38) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

SUMMARY

We, the undersigned Members of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, offer the following comments on H.R. 5381, the Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. The version adopted by the Committee 

is an improvement over the original draft and there are several 

provisions we support. We nonetheless oppose H.R. 5381 first, on 

process grounds, and second, based on insurmountable policy differences on key provisions. These disagreements stem from our 

philosophically different approaches on how to improve automobile 

safety that will result in significant savings of lives as well as our 

difference of opinion regarding the appropriate size and scope of 

the Federal government. 

The process was less than ideal. The original draft of this legislation was written without Republican input, nor were Republicans 

invited to participate in any stakeholder meetings as the legislation 

was drafted. We are confident that, had our participation been 

sought from the onset, some of the improvements included in the 

final draft would have been resolved earlier and we could have focused solely on our policy differences. 

In the end, we did not receive final text of H.R. 5381 until 12 

hours prior to Committee consideration. We also received neither 

notice nor text of the ‘‘manager’s amendment’’ until less than 10 

hours before the markup. Moreover, the manager’s amendment 

contained controversial provisions the Committee never examined 

or debated, and the Committee was not provided the benefit of 

technical analysis. 

Among the unvetted provisions is a prohibition on NHTSA employees working for an automobile manufacturer after leaving the 

Agency’s employment. This provision, as drafted, is a much broader 

prohibition than current NHTSA policy and will potentially apply 

to all employees—even the most clerical of positions. While we disagree on the policy of limiting free choice in employment, if the 

provision is meant to preemptively avoid undue influence by former 

employees on NHTSA, it is not clear why the prohibition should 

not also apply to post-NHTSA employment with any entity involving the automobile industry, including the plaintiff’s bar or automobile advocacy groups. Another unvetted provision requires electronic stability control for commercial vehicles, a requirement that 

may not be feasible. Finally, the manager’s amendment inserted a 

provision repealing preambles issued by the Agency (pursuant to 

Executive Order) under the previous Administration regarding the 

Agency’s view on the preemptive effect of its regulations on State 

tort claims. This provision is discussed in more detail below. 

The Majority’s desire to expedite the legislation through Committee precluded Committee Members receiving the AdministraVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:09 Jul 15, 2010 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR536.XXX HR536

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
39 

tion’s views, technical comments, or analysis of the legislation. 

With only one legislative hearing, many provisions were never discussed, including provisions that fundamentally change or reverse 

existing rules and regulations. 

TITLE BY TITLE

Our primary policy differences and objections concern three 

issues: (1) eliminating agency discretion to determine the most appropriate motor vehicle safety standards and replacing it with Congressional mandates, (2) funding authorization levels and associated revenue-raising taxes, and (3) fundamentally changing the 

manner in which the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) operates 

with respect to the automobile industry. 

TITLE I

We support the creation of the Center for Vehicle Electronics and 

Emerging Technologies to coordinate and further develop the Agency’s internal expertise in these areas. However, the Honors Recruitment Program includes an objectionable provision directing 

NHTSA to recruit based on preferred educational institutions. The 

Federal government should seek the best qualified candidates, regardless of the candidate’s alma mater. 

Additionally, we support the mandate for research into the use 

of lightweight materials in vehicles including plastics and composites. However, we note the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection—the same subcommittee that considered the 

discussion draft preceding H.R. 5381—distributed for consideration 

a discussion draft of legislation that would rewrite Federal chemical regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

Under that draft, it is unclear whether the end uses of the chemicals used in lightweight materials for vehicles would be permissible 

without EPA approval. If such changes to TSCA are enacted, the 

authorization and any appropriation for the program mandated by 

H.R. 5381 should be evaluated in that context. Taxpayers should 

not fund research for vehicle products that may not be permissible 

for use in vehicles. 

As a general matter, the mandated rulemakings and reviews in 

Title I raise serious concerns about Congress substituting its judgment and priorities for those of the Federal automobile safety agency—NHTSA—on how best to improve vehicle safety. NHTSA has 

proven its ability to prioritize and issue vehicle safety rules that 

save the most lives. Our primary concern is that burdening the 

Agency with Congressional priorities to issue rules and standards 

that will result in limited or no safety improvement will likely result in the delay of NHTSA’s own priorities to issue rules and 

standards that would save more lives. That is not an improvement 

in safety. 

Given that the Committee has not received any analysis from 

NHTSA on the probable cost of the legislative mandates and any 

related calculations of future lives saved, any notion that the mandates of H.R. 5381 are good policy rests on the belief these mandates will have greater proven safety benefits than any rules and 

changes NHTSA and the industry would adopt on their own. That 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
40 

may not be the case. As the law of economics dictate, if these mandates increase the cost of cars substantially—as many experts believe they will—cars will be less affordable and consumers will 

delay their purchase of new vehicles. When consumers delay purchases of new cars and newer used cars, they forego the benefit of 

the safety features available in newer model cars. Consequently 

they drive older, less safe cars. Ensuring safer cars are affordable 

will reduce deaths and should be the policy goal. 

Regarding the mandates to promulgate specific standards, we 

note that vehicle safety defects account for less than five percent 

of all vehicular fatalities. Driver behavior and driver error are the 

overwhelming causes of all highway deaths and should be addressed accordingly. That is not to say we object to improving vehicle safety, but as noted above, mandates should be commensurate 

with the costs and benefits of adopting them, and public resources 

should be directed to the most effective methods to reduce fatalities. The Administration understands this and has proposed to redirect $50 million from the State seatbelt grants program towards 

a new program combating distracted driving, which causes an estimated 6,000 unnecessary deaths per year. This will undoubtedly be 

more effective at saving lives than the mandated standards this 

legislation requires. 

Of the particular mandates, Section 108 is most troublesome. 

Aside from the fact that mandating installation of event data recorders (EDRs) is unnecessary because of the widespread adoption 

by automobile manufacturers, the requirement raises serious privacy concerns, particularly in combination with the government access rights also mandated herein. 

The initial question is whether a need for this requirement exists. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of all passenger vehicles in the 

U.S. market have these devices already installed (more than a statistically relevant portion) and manufacturers have indicated they 

will continue to expand their deployment of EDR technology. 

There is a rational argument that the data, in order to be meaningful, should be consistent with regard to the type of information 

collected, and that the information should be easily retrievable. 

NHTSA in fact has addressed these issues. In 2006, NHTSA promulgated a final rule specifying ‘‘uniform requirements for the accuracy, collection, storage, survivability, and retrievability’’ of EDR 

data for manufacturers that voluntarily choose to adopt the use of 

EDRs. The purpose of these standards was to enhance the analytical properties of EDR data and thus ‘‘contribute to safer vehicle 

designs and a better understanding of the circumstances and causation of crashes and injuries.’’ Given that NHTSA is both capable 

of identifying what data collection elements should be included in 

EDR designs as well as promulgating mandatory safety standards, 

we believe NHTSA—the relevant safety experts—are fully capable 

of making such EDR elements mandatory if a need exists. There 

is no legitimate reason we see that Congress should overrule the 

judgment of the relevant safety experts and mandate these devices 

on all vehicles. 

Coupled with a mandatory government access provision, this 

mandate is yet another intrusion into the lives of private citizens. 

While the bill specifically states the information recorded on an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
41 

EDR is the property of the consumer, that ownership is rendered 

meaningless by the provisions granting NHTSA access to redacted 

information in the vague case of ‘‘improving motor vehicle safety,’’ 

or full access to all data (including personally identifiable information) if retrieved in connection with a defect investigation—without 

the owner’s consent in either case. Making this more worrisome is 

that such information may be released under a FOIA request. Consequently, the proponents of this bill make all citizens subjects of 

Federal government data collection regardless of whether they consent or not. Citizens will have no choice under this government 

edict but to purchase a vehicle with a compulsory recording device. 

Compounding these privacy concerns is the open-ended nature of 

the directed rulemaking. In particular, we are concerned the legislative language permits NHTSA to require the capturing of location 

information on EDRs. 

There are certainly safety benefits to be derived from EDRs, but 

it is our strong belief that it is not the Federal government’s place 

to mandate both the installation and, more importantly, unfettered 

access to information ‘‘owned’’ by the consumer. 

In a similar privacy concern, the mandate of section 109 nudges 

closely to the Big Brother style of government. The provision would 

transfer $40 million over 5 years from NHTSA’s general budget to 

fund research into the ‘‘more widespread deployment of in-vehicle 

technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving.’’ While the purpose 

of the program is a noble goal—reducing the occurrence of drunk 

driving, it raises a number of broader public policy concerns. 

The most prevalent in-vehicle anti-drunk-driving technology is 

the breathalyzer ignition lock. These devices prevent individuals 

from operating a vehicle if their blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds 0.08 percent. Mandating such a technology in the vehicle of 

every citizen may reduce both accidents related to and the incidence of drunk-driving behavior, but it would also be a significant 

step toward an Orwellian government. Additionally, furthering 

such a policy would be an infringement on States’ rights. At this 

time there is not a Federal standard on legal blood alcohol content. 

Each State is rightfully empowered to determine such limits, and 

most States have adopted the Federal recommendation tied to 

Highway Trust Fund grants. Allocating $40 million dollars to researching federally-mandated breathalyzer ignition locks or similar 

technology would be a move toward a de facto Federal standard 

aimed at driver behavior but disguised as a safety mandate. The 

possibility of requiring every American to blow into a device every 

time they start their cars is a policy debate that should be settled 

by the States. 

TITLE II

Section 201 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 imposes unprecedented new disclosure requirements on private automobile 

companies while eliminating the functioning reporting system already in place. This section is a cause for concern because of the 

massive potential for waste it will create. Current regulatory protections for confidential business information (CBI) are well established and have been thoroughly litigated. This legislation statutorily nullifies these protections because certain petitioners were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
42 

denied changes during the previous Administration and in court. 

Requiring NHTSA to issue new regulations regarding CBI—in accordance with the views of those previously denied litigants—is an 

abuse of legislative power and creates a waste of taxpayer resources in rulemakings and legal proceedings. 

Under current regulations, confidential information sent to 

NHTSA by manufacturers can only be revealed to the public if the 

confidentiality of that information is preserved, or if it is necessary 

to carry out needed safety research and development. Section 201 

eliminates these basic protections of proprietary information, stating that all information currently sent to NHTSA must be publicly 

disclosed. This includes items such as aggregated warranty claims 

data, field reports, and production information. The NHTSA Chief 

Counsel previously stated in regulation that disclosing such proprietary information ‘‘is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the manufacturer . . . [and] likely to impair the 

government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future’’ 

(49 C.F.R. 512 Appendix C)(2009). 

If publicly disclosed, this data can be used to discern proprietary 

information such as a company’s corporate structure, product operability, products lines, or product marketability. Publicly disclosing 

such proprietary information could easily place a company at a 

competitive disadvantage, misrepresent a product’s risk, or generate frivolous and wasteful lawsuits. 

Section 201 further strips away CBI protections in subsection (d), 

where the bill specifically restricts production information from the 

FOIA common sense protections for CBI. Nothing in FOIA authorizes an Agency to create a category of information that must be disclosed to the public; in other words, a category of information that 

is exempt from the FOIA disclosure exemptions. This is a fundamental change to the manner in which FOIA operates and should 

not be rewritten on an ad hoc basis. We believe that this conflict 

in statutes will breed wasteful litigation and further limit fair competition in the U.S. automobile industry. 

It should also be noted that these provisions will damage automobile safety. Now that NHTSA is directed to abolish most of its 

protections on CBI, companies will show far less initiative in providing NHTSA data that may not be required if such information 

will be disclosed publicly. These provisions could deprive NHTSA 

of information once shared freely and confidentially with it by the 

private sector. 

In a time when two out of the three U.S. automobile manufacturers had to be ‘‘bailed out’’ by the Government, legislation should 

focus on enhancing the competitiveness of these industries while 

enhancing their safety. Section 201 fulfills neither goal, and instead will result in the opposite. 

Section 202 of the bill requires NHTSA to update the 

functionality of its publicly-accessible database for vehicle safety 

complaints. While we support an increase in functionality to the 

database, the effectiveness of the database could be further improved by adding provisions that increase both coordination with 

industry and database accuracy. Notifying manufacturers when a 

defect is reported would enhance a manufacturer’s ability to respond swiftly to potential safety hazards if they have not already 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
43 

been alerted to the potential problem. However, information is only 

an asset to consumers when it is accurate and legitimate; including 

knowingly false or incorrect information in the database undermines the goal of improving consumer knowledge. Allowing manufacturers the ability to seek correction or elimination of inaccurate 

reports would increase the reliability and usefulness of the database, as well as discourage use of the public database as an anticompetitive tool. NHTSA should be required to establish a process 

for the removal of claims proven to be erroneous or fraudulent. 

This is not a novel approach as the Subcommittee, the Committee, 

and the House and Senate approved a similar function in the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s consumer complaint database 

in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

Section 202(b) also raises a number of concerns. The provision requires NHTSA to make vehicle recall information available to the 

public on the Internet and searchable by vehicle identification 

number (VIN). While this could be a useful tool to consumers, there 

is little consideration given to the cost-benefit of the broad approach used in H.R. 5381. There are no boundaries on the length 

of time manufacturers must store recall data, potentially requiring 

manufacturers to store recall data indefinitely. This could result in 

an unwieldy and less useful database while simply wasting resources—costs that will inevitably be passed along to consumers. 

This type of broad data retention will not improve safety. Similarly, 

as the broader goal of this legislation is purportedly improved safety, storing and publishing recall data for non-safety-related defects 

adds no safety value. Just as storing antiquated safety recall data 

will muddle the database’s functional purpose, so too will the inclusion of non-safety-related recall data. 

TITLE III

While our objections to provisions in Titles I and II are strong, 

our strongest objections to H.R. 5381 are based in Title III. 

H.R. 5381 imposes a new tax (misleadingly labeled as a ‘‘user 

fee’’) on manufacturers for each vehicle certified for sale in America—a tax that will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer. Although misleadingly labeled a ‘‘user fee,’’ this assessment of $3 per 

vehicle (rising to $9 per vehicle in three years and adjusted to inflation thereafter) is a tax because manufacturers do not receive 

any services from NHTSA in return for this payment. While this 

user tax may appear modest, it increases the tax burden in a manner that would not help the automobile industry or consumers. 

Consumers and shareholders will end up paying the tax, and together with the bill’s other costly mandates, will unnecessarily increase the cost of vehicles. This would likely diminish sales, thereby depriving some consumers of newer, safer vehicles and dampen 

the prospects that GM and Chrysler will repay the funds used to 

bail them out. Further, once imposed, the government can easily 

increase the per car tax to the detriment of industry and consumers alike. History indicates that Congress never decreases 

‘‘user fees’’ but instead treats them as a new funding mechanism 

to offset increased spending. 

If Congress insists on paying for the excessive new funding levels 

in this legislation with a user fee, a more appropriate ‘‘user fee’’ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
44 

1The one potential budgetary savings could come from the mandated EDR provision we oppose. With unfettered government access to EDR data, it is reasonable to question the ongoing 

need to fund the National Automotive Sampling Survey (NASS) NHTSA uses to analyze crash 

data. 

would be assessed on public access to the consumer database. This 

type of fee would more appropriately align costs with benefit derived from access to the information. 

In addition to imposing an unjustified tax, H.R. 5381 dramati- cally increases NHTSA’s funding level by $150 million over 3 years 

to a total of $280 million without any explanation or direction regarding how the Agency should spend the additional funding. We 

cannot support this wasteful and bloated spending, especially given 

that the bill increases the Agency’s funding far beyond what even 

the Administration has requested. The Secretary of Transportation 

and the Administrator of NHTSA testified that under the President’s budget NHTSA would have the resources necessary to fulfill 

its mission. NHTSA seeks authorization to hire 66 additional employees, a 10 percent increase in the employment level at the Agency, including 22 new employees for vehicle safety. Not only will it 

be difficult to grow the staff by 22 additional employees in one 

year, but the Administration has yet to determine how these 22 

new vehicle safety employees will be utilized. We see no evidence 

that NHTSA needs more staff, or that it would wisely and effectively spend the massive increase in funding this bill provides.1

We see no justification for the new tax or the excessive funding 

levels mandated by this bill, particularly given the high tax burden 

on the American people and the government’s massive spending 

binge and enormous deficits. We find ironic the arguments justifying this giant leap in NHTSA funding. We frequently heard our 

counterparts describe NHTSA as lacking resources because it is 

overburdened and is therefore often unable to finish rulemakings 

in a timely fashion, yet this legislation—similar to previous Congressional mandates—will force NHTSA to set aside its priorities 

in favor of Congressional projects. This legislation will consume 

NHTSA resources for the next 3 years as it requires no less than 

10 rulemakings, reports, and studies—several of which are rewrites 

of existing law. We question the wisdom of devoting a disproportionate amount of resources to issue new or amend existing standards for acceleration-related problems that are extremely rare and 

are addressed by voluntary initiatives. 

TITLE IV

We oppose the bill’s excessive increase in civil penalty liability. 

It would increase the maximum penalty per violation from $5,000 

to $25,000 and the overall penalty cap from $16.4 million to $200 

million. Although we would support modest increases in both the 

maximum per-violation penalty and the cap, the bill increases 

these amounts far more than necessary to deter violations. Like 

other components of this bill, the penalty increases seem designed 

to punish the industry rather than to ensure compliance with the 

law. 

The new penalty amount seems disproportionate given the average cost of a vehicle and the profit margin per vehicle. When 

TREAD became law in 2000, it provided for a maximum penalty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
45 

per violation of $5,000. The average cost of a new car at the time 

was just under $25,000, making the maximum penalty about onefifth the cost of a new car. Today the average cost of a new car is 

about $30,000, making the new maximum penalty nearly as high 

as the cost of a new car. This five-fold increase in the maximum 

penalty is excessive, especially given that the profit margin on the 

average vehicle is significantly lower than the current maximum 

penalty of $5,000. 

The bill increases the penalty cap even more dramatically than 

it increases the maximum penalty per violation. We do not see any 

justification for a more than twelve-fold increase in the cap. The 

bill would provide for adequate deterrence with a significantly 

lower cap, especially in light of the damage to a manufacturer’s 

reputation, market share, profitability, and stock price that would 

surely accompany any violation arguably warranting such a severe 

total penalty. 

We also note that the cap applies to all businesses, regardless of size. Many small businesses would find a $200 million penalty impossible to pay, and would face the prospect of closing or filing for 

bankruptcy if required to pay. Although the bill’s new provision 

setting forth relevant factors in determining the penalty helps to 

alleviate some of our concerns regarding the size of the cap, the cap 

as proposed is punitive and potentially crippling to small businesses. 

Finally, the new maximum penalty amounts and cap are particularly harsh for reporting violations. Reporting violations that do not 

involve defects warranting a recall and clearly do not call for such 

high penalties. We are not aware of any evidence that untimely reporting is a widespread problem warranting a massive increase in 

the maximum penalty per reporting violation or the cap applicable 

to such penalties. 

TITLE V

Perhaps the single most objectionable provision added to this legislation at markup was inserted in the manager’s amendment. Section 501 can be characterized as nothing other than a gift to trial 

lawyers across America. It negates all preambles stating an intent 

to preempt State tort law issued by NHTSA under the Bush Administration pursuant to Executive Order. It further bars NHTSA 

from issuing future statements of preemptive intent unless specifically authorized by Congress. In sum, it eliminates defenses based 

on conflict preemption—a principle of the Supremacy Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). As such, it is effectively an 

end-run around both prior regulations and, more importantly, 

around the Constitution. 

Placing aside any discussion of whether this is an appropriate 

use of Congressional authority, this provision creates a mind-boggling litigation scenario. For instance, under 49 C.F.R. § 571.202 

(FMVSS 202), a head restraint must be installed at a minimum 

height of 700mm from the seat. As a result of this amendment, a 

plaintiff could file suit against a manufacturer for installing the 

head restraint too high. Without State tort preemption, such a suit 

would be permitted to move forward even though it is impossible 

to comply with both the Federal mandatory safety standard (head 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
46 

restraint installed at 700mm) and the plaintiff’s tort theory of liability (head restraint too high). 

In an ironic twist, the amendment may actually clash with the 

safety requirements legislated elsewhere in this bill. If NHTSA 

mandates brake override, and that mandatory safety standard is 

not declared preemptive of State tort laws, auto manufacturers 

may be sued for personal injury if the vehicle abruptly stops because the driver accidently hit both pedals at the same time (the 

exact need stated for the brake override). 

This is both fundamentally unfair and a waste of judicial resources in requiring a court to spend time hearing a case based on 

such a theory. Manufacturers that are required to comply with 

Federal safety standards must be shielded from liability for such 

compliance. 

For the reasons discussed herein, we, the undersigned, do not 

support H.R. 5381, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended. 

JOE BARTON, Ranking Member. 

JOHN SHIMKUS. 

CLIFF STEARNS. 

GEORGE RADANOVICH. 

STEVE BUYER. 

ROY BLUNT. 

ROBERT E. LATTA. 

PHIL GINGREY. 

MARSHA BLACKBURN. 

STEVE SCALISE. 

SUE MYRICK. 

JOSEPH R. PITTS. 

JOHN SULLIVAN. 

ED WHITFIELD. 

LEE TERRY. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC