U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–984PDF 2005

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 23, 2005

Serial No. 109–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

Vice Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

DAVID CAVICKE, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

Ranking Member

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JIM DAVIS, Florida

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Fennell, Janette E., President, Kids and Cars ............................................... 57

O’Neill, Brian, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ............. 49

Pikrallidas, Susan, Vice President of Public Affairs, AAA ........................... 54

Runge, Jeffrey W., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................................................................................................... 8

Webber, Frederick L., President, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ... 31

Additional material submitted for the record:

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, response for the record ................... 72

Runge, Jeffrey W., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, response for the record .......................................................... 73

(III)

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Radanovich, Bass,

Rogers, Otter, Myrick, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio),

Schakowsky, Markey, Green, Baldwin, and Dingell (ex officio).

Staff present: Bud Albright, staff director; Andy Black, deputy

staff director, Policy; Julie Fields, special assistant to the deputy

staff director; Chris Leahy, policy coordinator; Kelly Cole, majority

counsel; Larry Neal, deputy staff director, communications; Lisa

Miller, deputy communications director; Billy Harvard, clerk; Anh

Nguyen, clerk; Chad Grant, clerk; Jonathan Cordone, minority

counsel; David Vogel, research assistant; and Jodi Seth, press secretary.

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. I would like to welcome

everyone to this extremely important hearing on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

NHTSA, an agency that is critically important to the health and

safety of all Americans. I would like to thank, in particular, the Administrator, Mr. Runge, for rearranging his travel plans, and making time to be here this morning.

Simply put, NHTSA is charged with reducing motor vehicle crash

fatalities and injuries on our national highways. This is a formidable and complex task in a Nation of more than 235 million motor

vehicles that travel almost 3 trillion miles per year. In 2004, 42,800

people were killed on the Nation’s highways, up slightly from

42,643 in 2003. The rate of deaths based on vehicle miles traveled,

however, decreased from 2003 to 2004, from 1.48 to 1.46 deaths per

million vehicles traveled, miles traveled. In addition, there were 2.8

million injuries related to motor vehicle crashes in 2004, representing a 4.6 percent decrease from 2.9 million in 2003. These

cases, coupled with resultant property loss, cost the United States

economy about $230 billion in 2004 alone. Sadly, those numbers do

not begin to capture the personal anguish of those Americans and

those families affected by these deaths and these injuries. Clearly,

there is much work to be done.

2

The questions before us today include how best to deploy intellectual, financial, and other resources to work toward solving the most

significant motor vehicle safety problems, how to prioritize that

work based upon the most accurate and relevant data, and who

should make those strategic decisions: Congress, the experts at

NHTSA, or both? This committee’s oversight responsibilities compel

us to ensure that the American public is benefiting from the best

decisions from the most qualified experts. With that rationale in

mind, I believe that NHTSA reauthorization provisions in the Senate version of the transportation bill provide adequate support and

guidance for NHTSA and its dedicated experts to save lives and,

of course, prevent injuries. However, we must be certain that the

provisions negotiated provide enough flexibility to allow the data to

drive the need for mandated rules.

Without a doubt, 100 percent safety belt use still remains the

holy grail of motor vehicle fatality and injury prevention. In fact,

according to NHTSA’s own calculations, if all Americans wore their

safety belts, an additional 7,000 lives would be saved every year.

But sadly, 56 percent of occupants killed in crashes in 2004 were

not even wearing their safety belts. Safety belts remain the most

effective safety technology for saving lives and preventing injuries

in motor vehicle crashes. Fortunately, the safety belt use rate is

trending up, and was close to 80 percent in 2004, an increase of

almost 10 percent from 2000. I would like to commend Dr. Runge

for the tremendous work NHTSA has done to develop both legal

and technological incentives to promote safety belt use.

Today’s hearing will provide some key insights into the current

state-of-the-art in passive safety technology that protects us in the

event of a crash, airbags, crashworthiness, as well as active safety

or crash avoidance technology, which, as the name implies, helps

prevent crashes, and is becoming an important tool for saving lives

and preventing injuries. In my opinion, electronic stability control,

ESC, an active safety technology, highlights the future potential of

safety technology to apply protection before it becomes critical for

survival. ESC typically works with a vehicle’s anti-lock braking

system to maintain control in extreme maneuvers that can cause

a vehicle to leave the roadway, become tripped when it turns sideways, and rolls over. A recent NHTSA study concluded that ESC

was associated with a 30 percent reduction in single vehicle crash

fatalities for passenger cars, and a 63 percent for SUVs, when compared to the same models sold in prior years. These percentages

translate into about 7,000 lives saved annually, assuming 100 percent deployment. NHTSA is developing a performance standard

that would promote deployment of ESC technology, and several

automakers have already voluntarily committed to broad ESC deployment by a date certain.

My colleagues, I believe it is also—it is invaluable to encourage

voluntary action and industry-government cooperation in safety

matters, when appropriate. The open exchange of quality information creates opportunities for gains at the technical level, as well

as we have seen in programs like the stars system for crash test

ratings. It can also result in elegant, simple ways to make safety

an important factor in consumer purchasing decisions.

3

In closing, I would like to suggest a few general principles that

I believe would guide our discussion today. One, advances in technology, no matter how significant, are best promoted through performance-based standards that allow consumers and the market to

assist in establishing safety advances as the standard, not the option.

Two, NHTSA’s extremely important work is a data-driven business, not a political one. Sound science, quality data, objective cost/

benefit analysis should be the major factors used to establish priorities for advancing vehicle safety. And last, the finite resources provided by the American taxpayer to effectuate motor vehicle safety

should be deployed to promulgate rules and standards based on the

size of the safety and the likelihood of an optimal solution.

Again, I am glad that we have this opportunity to examine more

closely NHTSA’s reauthorization conference provisions, and help

realize the shared goals of reducing death and injury on our highways. I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses.

Before I go to the ranking member, I would point out, in deference to Mr. Runge, we are going to have opening statements from

myself, the ranking member, and the chairman of the Energy and

Commerce Committee. We will move to Dr. Runge, and then, before

the next panel, we will continue with our opening statements.

And with that, Ms. Schakowsky.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to this extremely important hearing on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA)—an agency that is critically important to the health and safety of all

Americans. I would like to thank, in particular, Administrator Runge for rearranging his travel plans and making time to be here this morning.

Simply put, NHTSA is charged with reducing motor vehicle crash fatalities and

injuries on our national roadways. This is a formidable and complex task in a nation

of more than 235 million motor vehicles that traveled almost three trillion miles last

year. In 2004, 42,800 people were killed on the nation’s highways, up slightly from

42,643 in 2003. The rate of deaths based on vehicle miles traveled, however, decreased from 2003 to 2004 from 1.48 to 1.46 deaths per million vehicle miles traveled. In addition, there were 2.8 million injuries related to motor vehicle crashes in

2004, representing a 4.6% decease from 2.9 million in 2003. Those cases coupled

with resultant property loss cost the United States economy over $230 billion dollars

in 2004 alone. Sadly, these numbers do not begin to capture the personal anguish

of those Americans and their families affected by these deaths and injuries. Clearly,

there is much more work to be done.

The questions before us today include how best to deploy intellectual, financial,

and other resources to work towards solving the most significant motor vehicle safety problems; how to prioritize that work based on the most accurate and relevant

data; and who should make those strategic decisions—the Congress?, the experts at

NHTSA?, both? This Committee’s oversight responsibilities compel us to ensure that

the American public is benefiting from the best decisions from the most qualified

experts. With that rationale in mind, I believe that the NHTSA reauthorization provisions in the Senate version of the transportation bill provide adequate support and

guidance for NHTSA and its dedicated experts to save lives and prevent injuries.

However, we must be certain that the provisions negotiated provide enough flexibility to allow the data to drive the need for mandated rules.

Without a doubt, 100% safety belt use still remains the holy grail of motor vehicle

fatality and injury prevention. In fact, according to NHTSA own calculations, if all

Americans wore their safety belts, an additional 7,000 lives would be saved every

year. But sadly, 56% of occupants killed in crashes in 2004 were not wearing safety

belts. Safety belts remain the most effective safety technology for saving lives and

preventing injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Fortunately, the safety belt use rate

4

is trending up and was close to 80% in 2004, an increase of almost 10% from 2000.

I would like to commend Dr. Runge for the tremendous work NHTSA has done to

develop both legal and technological incentives to promote safety belt use.

Today’s hearing will provide some key insight into the current state-of-the-art in

passive safety technology that protects in the event of a crash (airbags, crashworthiness), as well as active safety or ‘‘crash avoidance’’ technology, which, as the

name implies, helps prevent crashes and is becoming an important new tool for saving lives and preventing injuries. In my opinion, electronic stability control (ESC),

an active safety technology, highlights the future potential of safety technology to

apply protection before it becomes critical for survival. ESC typically works with a

vehicle’s anti-lock braking system (ABS) to maintain control in extreme maneuvers

that can cause a vehicle to leave the roadway, become ‘‘tripped’’ when it turns sideways, and roll over. A recent NHTSA study concluded that ESC was associated with

a 30% reduction in single vehicle crash fatalities for passenger cars and 63% for

SUVs, when compared to the same models sold in prior years. These percentages

translate into about 7,000 lives saved annually, assuming 100% deployment.

NHTSA is developing a performance standard that would promote deployment of

ESC technology, and several automakers have already voluntarily committed to

broad ESC deployment by a date certain.

I also believe it is valuable to encourage voluntary action and industry-government cooperation in safety matters, when appropriate. The open exchange of quality

information creates opportunities for gains at the technical level and, as we have

seen in programs like the stars system for crash test ratings, it also can result in

elegant, simple ways to make safety an important factor in consumer purchasing

decisions.

In closing, I’d like to suggest a few general principles that, I believe, should guide

our discussion today:

• Advances in technology, no matter how significant, are best promoted through

performance-based standards that allow consumers and the market to assist in

establishing safety advances as the standard not the option. • NHTSA’s extremely important work is a data driven business, not a political one.

Sound science, quality data, and objective cost/benefit analysis should be the

major factors used to establish priorities for advancing vehicle safety. • The finite resources provided by the American taxpayer to effectuate motor vehicle safety should be deployed to promulgate rules and standards based on the

size of the safety problem and the likelihood of an optimal solution.

Again, I am glad that we have this opportunity to examine more closely the

NHTSA reauthorization conference provisions and help realize the shared goal of reducing death and injury on our highways. I would like to welcome our distinguished

panel of witnesses. Thank you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding

this hearing on the reauthorization of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and the challenges NHTSA faces

as it works to meet its safety improvement responsibilities.

I would also like to recognize and thank my ranking member,

Representative Dingell, who is hopefully going to be here shortly,

and I want to welcome our witnesses, who are here to share with

us their views on how to improve safety, reduce fatalities and injuries, and better protect children.

Over the past 3 years, more than 125,000 people died in motor

vehicle crashes. Nearly 9 million more people were injured during

that time. Mind you, those numbers do not include children who

were injured or killed in and around cars that were not in traffic.

Currently, NHTSA does not track injuries and fatalities in nontraffic, non-crash-related car accidents. The best government statistics we can reference come from the Centers for Disease Control,

a CDC study, that found that an estimated 9,160 children suffered

nonfatal injuries and 78 children were killed in non-traffic accidents between July 2000 and June 2001.

Because there are no official statistics kept by NHTSA, one of

our witnesses, Janette Fennell, took it upon herself to collect every

report of every non-traffic accident she could find, in order to paint

5

a picture of how severe a problem it is. After personally scouring

news reports, she found that in 2004, there were at least 523 children who were involved in non-traffic, non-crash-related incidents,

and at least 165 of those children died. Those numbers, reflecting

only the stories picked up by the press, are cause for alarm. Right

now, we can only imagine how staggering they truly are, and we

can only imagine how devastating each accident is to each family

affected.

Not only do I think we need to count every accident, whether in

a driveway or on the highway, I also think that we must do everything we can in order to limit accidents that are otherwise preventable, and ensure that vehicles on and off the road are as safe as

possible. While I think everyone is in agreement with Dr. Runge

and Mr. Webber, two of our witnesses, that we need to do all we

can to make sure that drivers and passengers are wearing their

seatbelts, and that impaired drivers are off the road, manufacturers and NHTSA also need to do whatever they can to make sure

that the safety factors of the vehicles are addressed as well.

Our witnesses are right. It will make a significant difference in

reducing the seriousness of injuries and numbers of deaths on the

road if we can increase personal responsibility. However, I do not

believe that manufacturers and NHTSA are absolved of their responsibilities just because drivers’ behaviors contribute to accidents.

Increasingly, we are seeing problems stemming from the fact

that people are buying bigger and more powerful vehicles. In fact,

half of new vehicles purchased are SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks.

SUVs accounted for 1 in 4 cars sold in 2003 alone. This has led to

an increased number of rollover accidents. Deaths in SUV rollovers

increased by 7 percent between 2003 and 2004, from 2,639 to 2,821.

Between 1992 and 2004, rollover deaths in SUVs increased by an

astounding 238 percent. It is no surprise that with increases like

that, rollover deaths currently account for one-third of all passenger occupant fatalities. And with SUVs growing in size, their

rear blind spots have also become larger. Some SUVs have blind

spots as deep as 50 feet, so large that 20 children can be hidden

behind them. In 2004, we lost more than 100 children to back-over

accidents alone, because they went unseen. Many of these accidents

were in families’ own driveways. We must approach the problem of

increasing rollovers and blind spots, along with other safety issues

we know about, by working on ways to prevent accidents from happening, as well as improving protections for people in the cases

that do occur.

There are a number of good policy provisions in the Senate highway bill that would address many of the safety issues with which

I am concerned, including a provision to collect statistics for nontraffic accidents. I hope that we can work out the most appropriate

way to keep those provisions, that protect people in and around

cars, in the bill.

Additionally, I want to mention that a number of contributing

factors to non-traffic-related car accidents are also addressed in

H.R. 2230, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act,

which I have introduced with Representative Peter King again this

Congress. I believe that by simply requiring safer power window

6

switches, better rear visibility, and a reminder system that lets

drivers know if passengers remain in the vehicle, which our bill

would require, we could protect our most valuable cargo, our children.

Again, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and

I appreciate, Congressman Stearns, your holding today’s hearing.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. Now, the distinguished

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton, the gentleman from

Texas.

Chairman BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding

this hearing today on the reauthorization of the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration.

Nearly every family in this country owns at least one car, and

in 2003, more than 40,000 members of those families died in their

cars. My family is one of those victims. My cousin from Colorado

was killed in a two car accident on an interstate highway, when

the car behind moved over and clipped her car as she was attempting to exit to go home. So I know what I am talking about when

we talk about families that have to bear the tragedy of deaths because of automobile accidents. When I say cars, I don’t mean literally cars. I mean every kind of vehicle, from pickup trucks that

fill the roads in my part of the country, to taxis in New York, to

the limos here in Washington, over on K Street, every kind of fourwheeled, six-wheeled, and eight-wheeled vehicle. Cars are part of

our culture and part of our lives. Thankfully, they are getting better every year. I want to thank the automakers of this country for

improving vehicle safety over the last 20 years. Every year, more

people buckle up in their seatbelts. And although there are more

cars on the road every year, and they all come in different shapes

and sizes, the accident rate per mile traveled continues to decline.

Despite these advances, does anyone doubt that the cars that we

drive could be made safer? I sure think they could be.

I also know that new technologies are taking safety to a new

level. In addition to shielding people from injury in an accident, I

am told that the next generation of cars may actually help drivers

to avoid a crash. A feature called electronic stability control can

prevent loss of control during emergency maneuvers.

Two of our witnesses from NHTSA and the Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety have concluded recently that this technology is

particularly effective in dramatically cutting the number of single

vehicle crashes in SUVs. This translates into lives saved.

The timing of this hearing is no accident. We are negotiating a

new transportation bill in the Transportation Conference Committee, and I, along with Mr. Dingell, am a conferee of that conference. The Senate has brought to the table a bill that includes

NHTSA provisions that would require the agency to complete

rulemakings on several safety initiatives, including vehicle rollover,

occupant ejection mitigation, side crashes, and roof strength. I am

anxious to learn from each of our witnesses today about how this

legislative language perhaps could save lives on America’s roads

and highways.

This committee shares jurisdiction over NHTSA, and in some

cases, has sole jurisdiction, such as in the issue of automobile safety. The Senate highway bill provisions that we are discussing today

7

would be referred to this committee, if they were a standalone bill.

An option before us today is to reject the items in the conference

committee, and to consider them in this committee in a standalone

NHTSA reauthorization bill. It is an option that has a lot of appeal

to me. I look forward to looking and listening to the witnesses, to

see if that is something that we should consider. I haven’t made

a decision yet, and haven’t—I have had some discussions with Mr.

Dingell about doing it as a standalone bill. So we are going to, obviously, work together on that after the conclusion of today’s hearing.

The loss of life on our roads, in terms of rate of loss of life, is

decreasing annually, but the aggregate number is still a huge number: 42,263 people died in automobile accidents in 2003. To put

that into context, there is a legitimate concern about the number

of deaths of our soldiers, soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Iraq, but

the total number of deaths there, in the time that we have been

there, is under 2,000, and once again, in 2003, we had 42,263

deaths from automobile accidents on our Nation’s highways and byways. There is great work to be done to reduce that rate. The

transportation conference is a good place to start. This committee

might be even a better place to start. I look forward to being educated by our witnesses today on these issues and others that they

may wish to bring before the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Stearns, for arranging for this hearing. I look

forward to hearing from the witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing today on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nearly every family in this country owns at least one car, and in 2003, more than

40,000 members of these families died in their cars. By ‘‘cars’’ I mean everything

from the pickup trucks that fill the roads in my part of the country, to the taxis

in New York, to the limos over on K Street here in Washington. Cars are part of

the culture and part of our lives, and they’re getting better every year. In particular,

automakers have dramatically improved vehicle safety in the last 20 years. Every

year more people buckle their seatbelts. And although more cars hit the road every

year, and they come in all shapes and sizes, the accident rate continues to decline.

Despite the advances, does anybody doubt that the cars we drive can be even safer?

I sure don’t.

I also know that new technologies are taking safety to a new level. In addition

to shielding people from injury in an accident, I’m told that the next generation of

cars may actually help drivers avoid a crash. A feature called ‘‘electronic stability

control’’ can prevent loss of control during emergency maneuvers.

Two of our witnesses, from NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, both concluded recently that this technology is particularly effective in dramatically cutting the number of single-vehicle crashes in SUVs. This translates into lives

saved.

The timing of this hearing is no accident. We are negotiating a new Transportation bill in the Transportation Conference Committee, and I am a conferee. The

Senate has brought to the table a bill that includes NHTSA provisions that would

require the agency to complete rulemakings on several safety initiatives, including

vehicle rollover, occupant ejection mitigation, side crashes, and roof strength. I am

anxious to learn from each of our witnesses today about how this legislative language can save lives on America’s roads and highways.

This Committee shares jurisdiction over NHTSA, and has sole jurisdiction over

automobile safety issues. The Senate highway bill provisions we are discussing

today would be referred to this Committee as a stand-alone bill. One option before

us is to reject the items in the conference and to consider them in a stand-alone

NHTSA reauthorization bill. I have not come to a position on the provisions or the

procedure.

8

Although the loss of life rate on our roads decreases annually, the actual number

staggers the imagination: 42,263 people died in auto accidents in 2003. Plainly,

there is great work yet to be done, and the Transportation Conference is a good

place to start. I look forward to being educated by our witnesses on these vehicle

safety issues today

Thank you again, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing and I look forward

to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman, and as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Runge had changed his travel plans so he could

be here. So he has made a sacrifice for us, so if the members will

realize that we will get to their opening statements right after his

testimony.

We welcome you, Dr. Runge, and thank you for making your

changes, so that you could be here, and we look forward to your

opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR,

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman Barton, for calling this hearing today, and for giving us a

chance to talk to you about what we live and breathe in NHTSA,

which is motor vehicle safety. You did a very nice job of summarizing my opening statement, so I will try to be brief.

Our mission is very straightforward, to prevent injuries, and to

save lives on our Nation’s highways. You have heard the number

of 42,000 mentioned three times now. I think that that simply does

not capture the devastating losses that occur personally to everyone, Chairman Barton and the other 42,000 families every year

who are affected by this, not to mention the cost to our economy

of over $230 billion, and those were in the year 2000 dollars, by

the way.

There is no question that safety improvements in vehicles have

been a worthy role of government. Since its inception in the 1960’s,

we estimate that the lives of 330,000 Americans have been saved

through vehicle technologies, but over half of that 330,000 was

saved by one simple technology, the safety belt, 180,000 people. So

today, there is much public attention devoted to vehicle safety

standards, yet over 90 percent of crashes, well over 90 percent of

crashes, are caused by human factors, such as inattention, speeding, impaired driving, and other physiologic impairment. So the

largest gains in highway safety yet to be realized are in the human

factors area, including how drivers interact with their vehicles and

their environment. So we have to devote our agency’s resources to

where they can reduce the most fatalities, and we have to prioritize

our rulemakings and research activities in accordance with that

principle. To do otherwise, we believe, Mr. Chairman, would be an

irresponsible stewardship of the public trust and the public’s resources.

For these reasons, earlier this year, we published an update of

NHTSA’s rulemaking priority plan, which sets the agency’s rulemaking goals through 2009. Now, this priority plan was set using

sound science, through a careful examination of costs and benefits,

through an iterative public process. This plan is a living document,

and we intend to update it periodically. Our highest rulemaking

priorities are those that have the greatest potential to reduce death

9

and injury. Unfortunately, we likewise must give a lower priority

to those proposals not supported by sound data, or that involve

large costs to consumers with minimal impact on the safety numbers.

Because NHTSA bases this rulemaking on sound research and

real world data, the Administration is opposed to any legislative

mandates that would presuppose the outcomes of the research necessary to underpin a rule, or displace a higher priority regulatory

action. We are concerned that arbitrary deadlines in Congressional

mandates could preclude the vital research and analysis needed to

avoid unintended and dangerous consequences to deployment of

technologies. The public deserves regulations that are technically

sound, practicable, and objective.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of our rulemaking priority plan are

detailed in my written testimony. Among the most urgent is a vital

upgrade to our side impact standard, designed to protect occupants

struck in the side, often by larger vehicles. Of over 33,000 vehicle

occupants killed, 9,000 are in side impacts, and we think this rule

will save 850 to 1,000 Americans each year, and avoid devastating

brain injuries for many, many others.

Another high priority for our Agency is rollover, which causes the

deaths of over 10,000 people a year. Nearly half of those rollover

deaths are the result of full ejections from the vehicle, and nearly

all of those ejected were not wearing safety belts. We have a comprehensive plan to reduce fatalities and injuries from rollovers, as

no single regulation will address this problem adequately. Our intention is to prevent most rollovers from occurring in the first place

through technologies which were mentioned in the opening statements, and protecting occupants when they—when rollovers do

occur.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to bring up a topic not within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, yet it is the most important thing

that we all can do to save lives immediately. There is a provision

in the Senate version of H.R. 3 that will save over 1,200 lives a

year, and do it faster and cheaper, in fact, for free, more than any

other proposal you will consider this Congress, and certainly within

the highway bill.

I am referring to the Administration’s proposal, passed by the

Senate but not contained in the House bill, which would provide

generous incentives to States to pass primary safety belt laws, or

to reach 90 percent safety belt usage. It seems that—sorry. It

seems a curious quirk of jurisdiction that this subcommittee oversees the equipping of safety belts in vehicles, but it ends there, not

the use. Mr. Chairman, it can not end there. If any benefit it to

be realized by so equipping those vehicles, Congress must act affirmatively to assist the States in raising safety belt usage, or the

cost and the lives will be wasted.

Primary belt laws are necessary because States that enact a primary belt law average a belt use of 84 percent, compared with 73

percent in States without primary belt laws last year. Every percentage point we raise belt use, Mr. Chairman, saves 270 lives,

4,000 serious injuries, and over $800 million in economic impact to

this country every year, for every percentage in belt use.

10

Now, consider that NHTSA recently completed the 15

rulemakings that surrounded the TREAD Act. These regulations

cost consumers $1.2 billion and took years of NHTSA resources,

and for that, we expect to save about 120 lives a year. In comparison, if the remaining 28 States pass a primary belt law, we will

save 10 times that many every year, by utilizing a device already

in the car that consumers have already paid for. This economic efficiency of this potential Congressional action stands in stark contrast to the mandated rulemakings in the Senate version of H.R.

3 under your consideration.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, before coming to Washington, as

you know, I spent 20 years as an emergency physician in one of

our Nation’s busiest trauma centers. To me, that 42,000 number,

as Chairman Barton suggested, is not just an abstraction. These

are real people. Telling a family that their mother or father or sister or brother or son or daughter is not coming home again is all

you need to understand the obligation that we, as policymakers,

have to bring those numbers down, and to increase safety belt use

in our Nation. So often, that conversation would never have happened if that person had just been wearing his safety belt.

So the facts are today, Mr. Chairman, if this committee wants to

make a real impact on the number of highway deaths, there is one

provision of SAFETEA that dwarfs all the others in importance,

and I thank you for letting me bring that to your attention.

[The prepared statement of Jeffrey W. Runge follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Stearns, Congresswoman Schakowsky, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss reauthorization of the motor vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I want to express my appreciation for this Subcommittee’s longstanding support

of motor vehicle safety programs. Transportation safety is a top priority for Secretary Mineta and President Bush. Your work has allowed NHTSA to advance

motor vehicle safety. We are grateful to this Subcommittee for its continuing leadership and for scheduling this hearing.

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives and prevent injuries. Motor vehicle crashes are

responsible for 95 percent of all transportation-related deaths and 99 percent of all

transportation-related injuries. They are the leading cause of death for Americans

in the age group 3 through 33. In 2003, the last year for which we have complete

data, 42,643 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes. The economic costs associated with these crashes also seriously impact the Nation’s fiscal health. The annual

cost to our economy of all motor vehicle crashes is $230.6 billion in Year 2000 dollars, or 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

The motor vehicle safety law vests NHTSA with the authority and responsibility

to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment that

are performance-based, objective, practicable, and repeatable, and that advance real

world safety. These standards reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes and minimize the consequences of crashes that do occur.

The safety improvements in vehicles have been significant since NHTSA’s inception in the 1960s. We estimate that total lives saved by vehicle technologies number

about 330,000, over half of which are attributable to safety belts. Today, there is

much agency and public attention devoted to vehicle safety standards, yet over 90

percent of crashes are caused by human factors, such as inattention, speeding and

physiologic impairment. The largest gains in highway safety yet to be realized are

in the human factors area, including how drivers interact with their vehicles. Relatively few lives will be saved in the future by continuing a traditional focus on vehicle crashworthiness. We must devote our agency’s resources where they can reduce the safety problem most effectively. And we must prioritize our rulemaking

11

and research activities in accordance with that principle. To do otherwise would be

irresponsible stewardship of public resources and the public’s welfare.

When I came before this committee last year, I spoke of the publication, in 2003,

of the first ever NHTSA multi-year vehicle safety rulemaking priority plan. Early

this year we updated the plan, and it now sets forth the agency’s rulemaking goals

through 2009. The rulemaking and supporting research priorities were defined

through extensive discussions within the agency, taking into account the views we

have heard over several recent years at public meetings and in response to rulemaking notices and requests for comment. We prioritized potential new rules and

upgrades of existing rules according to the size and severity of the problems they

address, and the best educated estimates of the cost and effectiveness. The agency

works closely with Congress and the public to define our priorities.

We intend for our rulemaking priority plan to be a living document, and will continue to update it annually. In addition, we are committed to reviewing all Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards systematically over a 7-year cycle. We decided that

such a review is needed in light of changing technology, vehicle fleet composition,

safety concerns and other issues that may require changes to a standard. Our regulatory reviews are in keeping with the goals of the Government Performance and

Results Act, to ensure that our rulemaking actions produce measurable safety outcomes. Because of this careful process, and the need to make these decisions based on

current data, the Administration is opposed to legislatively mandated rulemaking

actions that displace deliberative research and regulatory actions. The process that

we have developed will produce the best and most cost-effective solutions to our

most critical safety needs. The imposition of deadlines and mandated requirements

can preclude the completion of necessary research and force premature judgments

or the adoption of incomplete or only partially developed solutions.

Furthermore, we have seen proposed mandates with technical elements that have

not proven viable. Several decades of vehicle safety rulemaking have demonstrated

that quality data and research produce regulations that are technically sound, practicable, objective, and repeatable. Our rulemaking priority plan was carefully considered, in the context of concomitant research needs, and I ask for your support in

our pursuit of its objectives.

The overall safety priorities set by our agency at the outset of this Administration

are increasing safety belt use, reducing impaired driving, addressing vehicle crash

incompatibility, reducing rollovers, and enhancing our data systems. In 2003, we

carefully studied these objectives and developed and published a roadmap for

achieving them. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the motor vehicle safety

law, which is central to our objective of reducing deaths and injuries associated with

crash incompatibility and rollover.

NHTSA’s priority rulemakings for the immediate future include enhanced side

crash protection, preventing occupant ejection in rollovers, electronic stability control systems, and upgrading our standards relating to roof crush and door locks. Our

longer-term research priorities include a number of potential advances in crash

avoidance driver-assist technologies and addressing vehicle incompatibility in frontal crashes. We have integrated our rulemaking priority plan and our research plan

to ensure that, as rulemaking becomes necessary to advance safety in the future,

we have the research to support it.

In all of our efforts, we recognize the vital role that complete and precise data

play in identifying safety problems. With that in mind, we have evaluated the important advances that electronic data recorders can add to our crash data and our

ability to assess safety needs and benefits, and we are completing a final rule to

address these devices that we intend to publish this Fall.

I would like to turn, now, to a discussion of some of the specific actions we are

taking in accord with our rulemaking priority plan, against the backdrop of the safety problems we must address.

Of the 33,471 passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2003, more than 9,000 were

killed in side impacts. In side impacts involving two-passenger vehicles, an occupant

of the struck vehicle was about 8 times more likely to have been killed than an occupant of the striking vehicle. It’s not hard to see why preventing deaths and injuries

in side-impact crashes is one of our highest priorities.

In May 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade our sideimpact standard. We estimate that this upgrade will prevent many hundreds of

deaths annually in these types of crashes. We are now developing the final rule and

hope to publish it in early 2006.

The growing popularity over the past ten years of light trucks, vans, and utility

vehicles (LTVs) has changed the mix of vehicles in the fleet and the safety picture.

More vehicle occupants are being killed in crashes between passenger cars and light

12

trucks than in crashes involving only passenger cars. Passenger car occupants are

over three and one-half times more likely to die than LTV occupants in crashes between the two vehicle types, both in front-to-front and in side impact crashes.

NHTSA’s 2003 integrated project team plan outlined our strategy of addressing

the issue of compatibility through partner-protection, self-protection, lighting/glare

and reforms to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. We expect our upgraded side impact standard to provide increased protection for occupants in vehicles struck by other vehicles, and NHTSA is conducting research to determine good

measures of vehicle compatibility and alternative test barriers to improve protection

of occupants of struck vehicles.

Rollover crashes account for a substantial percentage of the fatal crashes in the

country. Even though only 2.5 percent of crashes are rollovers, over 10,000 people

die each year in rollovers. This is almost a third of all passenger vehicle occupant

fatalities and about 60 percent of sport utility vehicle (SUV) occupant fatalities. The

data show that nearly half of all rollover deaths are the result of ejection from a

vehicle, and nearly all of these occupants are unbelted.

We added dynamic testing of vehicles as part of our rollover resistance rating system in accordance with the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and

Documentation (TREAD) Act. Testing and reporting of those results began with

2004 model year vehicles as part of our New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).

We have already noticed improvements in vehicle designs and in safety ratings.

Manufacturers strive to obtain high safety ratings under NCAP, because so many

consumers rely on this information in making their vehicle purchasing decisions. We

have seen an increase in vehicle manufacturers using NHTSA’s star-rating information in their product advertising. An informed public will be an effective catalyst for

improved rollover resistance. NHTSA’s new web site, www.safercar.gov, enhances

the consumer’s access to this safety information.

To improve the crashworthiness of vehicles that do roll over in a crash, we are

working on improved ejection mitigation and roof crush protection. Even as NHTSA

is upgrading our side impact standard, all of the major automobile manufacturers

have committed over time to ensure that their vehicles meet certain testing criteria

for side impacts. Those testing criteria are intended to encourage the installation

of side airbag curtains that protect against brain injury in side impact crashes. An

additional benefit of many side airbag curtains is that they prevent potentially lethal ejections.

In addition to the attention we are giving our rollover and compatibility priorities,

we also intend to bring to Congress some additional important safety initiatives. We

believe the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to participate and cooperate in international activities to enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety. This

would provide for NHTSA’s participation and cooperation in international activities

aimed at developing the best possible global safety research and technical regulations. Through participation in these international efforts, the United States will

combine its motor vehicle safety initiatives with those of other countries, to ensure

a comprehensive approach to motor vehicle safety and to promote cost-effective deployment of safety technologies.

A second area is our need to expand activities in crash prevention and severity

reduction. The most significant vehicle safety initiatives in the future will be based

on technology that avoids crashes, rather than our traditional emphasis on crashworthiness. This would include evaluations of crash avoidance technologies such as

electronic stability control, telematics, alternative braking, vision enhancement systems, lane keeping systems, and collision avoidance systems.

We anticipate that our research into these and other driver assistance technologies will reach significantly beyond the scope of current agency research and development activities. The rapid advances in these technologies will radically change

the design and performance of automobiles over the next 10 years and, coupled with

the aging driver population, present unique research challenges in human factors

engineering. Our goal is to hasten the introduction of vehicle-based driver assistance

technologies into the marketplace while ensuring their safe performance across all

demographics, through the development of standards, voluntary guidelines, and consumer information. In doing so, we will have to be mindful that with the proliferation of new technologies comes the potential for increased driver distraction.

A third area is our need to engage in research and development in fuel integrity

of hydrogen powered vehicles. This includes risk assessment studies and the development of test and evaluation procedures, performance criteria, and suitable countermeasures.

This safety initiative would support the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and

the FreedomCAR Program. In particular, the research program would investigate

the safety of the power train, the vehicle fuel container and delivery system, the

13

onboard refueling system, and the full vehicle system performance. This research

would evaluate leak detection systems, determine the effectiveness of safety systems, assess fire potential and flammability, and evaluate external hazards to these

systems. The onboard refueling system related research and performance tests

would evaluate fuel leakage, examine sparking and grounding conditions of the refueling system, and examine conditions under which fire could occur.

I would like to take a moment now to highlight NHTSA’s important and continuing role in the delivery of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). For more than

3 decades, longer than any other Federal agency, NHTSA has been the Federal Government’s leader for EMS. Our first Administrator, Dr. William Haddon, had a vision for EMS systems before they existed, and recognized that caring for the injured

would be essential to decreasing the number of highway deaths. He also realized,

as we still do today, that the only sustainable EMS system is one that addresses

all emergencies. As EMS grew to include caring for people with non-traffic-related

injuries, NHTSA created an informal Federal interagency EMS structure,

partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security, and national EMS organizations to provide the leadership, coordination, and

policy guidance to enhance the national EMS system.

The needs of a comprehensive EMS system surpass the expertise or funding of

any one agency. This is why I urge you to adopt the Administration’s proposal, as

contained in the Senate’s version of H.R. 3, which would create a formal, ongoing

mechanism with the authority to coordinate Federal EMS activities. Such a committee, dubbed ‘‘FICEMS’’ (for Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services) would not only allow, but require EMS to continue to tap the expertise

and the resources of multiple departments.

Creating FICEMS avoids duplication, assures consistency of mission, and maximizes the use of limited resources. Through the proposed EMS grant program,

which is also in the Senate bill, each State’s EMS office would receive formula grant

funds for improving the capacity of the entire EMS system. This would not duplicate

funding provided by other agencies, but would be the primary funding to support

the basic EMS infrastructure that these segments utilize.

Since 1966, NHTSA and the Department of Transportation have been at the forefront of the Federal Government’s efforts to support every portion of the EMS system. I ask members of this Committee to continue NHTSA’s commitment to EMS

for the next decades.

Finally, I want to bring up a topic that is not within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, yet vital to saving lives. There is a provision in the Senate version of

H.R. 3 that will save over 1,200 lives a year, and do it faster and cheaper than any

other proposal you will consider in this Congress, and perhaps in this decade. If the

intent of this hearing is to hear what can NHTSA do now that will immediately

save lives, this is a provision I strongly urge the House to adopt.

I am referring to the Administration’s proposal, passed by the Senate but not in

the House bill, which would provide incentives to the States to enact primary safety

belt laws or reach 90 percent safety belt usage. Why are primary safety belt laws

important? Because States that enact a primary safety belt law can expect to see

their safety belt use numbers rise by approximately 11 percentage points practically

overnight. If all States adopted a primary belt law, we would prevent 1,275 deaths

and 17,000 serious injuries every year. No other safety proposal I am aware of before Congress would save more than 1,200 people annually at practically no cost.

Consider that NHTSA recently completed the 15 rulemakings related to the

TREAD Act. The actions associated with that law cost consumers $1.2 billion and

took years to promulgate. In total, that law will save 120 lives annually. In comparison, if the remaining States enacted a primary belt law, we would save ten times

as many lives annually, by utilizing a device already in the car, at no cost to the

consumer.

It is one of the paradoxes of Congressional jurisdiction that this committee oversees the equipping of safety belts in vehicles, but not their use. There is no benefit

to equipping vehicles with safety belts unless they are worn. I want to stress that

this proposal provides incentives to the States, not sanctions. No State would be penalized for not adopting a primary belt law.

Mr. Chairman, if the members of this Subcommittee want to save lives and do

it now, and I know every Member here shares that goal, I urge you and your colleagues to adopt the Senate language for primary belt incentives. No vehicle mandate, no elaborate rulemaking, no public relations campaign would save as many

lives as Congress giving the States an incentive to pass primary belt laws.

I urge this Subcommittee to support all of these important safety initiatives and

our rulemaking goals as outlined in our priority plan. I will be glad to answer any

questions you may have.

14

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you. I will start with the questions.

I think a good example of what you are talking about is the air

safety bag. Back in, I guess, the mid-90’s, it was sort of a rulemaking that we had to make safety airbags stronger, and in so

doing, by making them stronger, then you are going to actually increase the possibility of death to infant children, and so Congress

had to back off on that, and we had to indicate this rulemaking is

not appropriate. And that goes to what I said in my opening statement.

There is a fine balance between Congress issuing a rule and the

optimum safety provided with the cost analysis, and what the impact would be. And you are indicating this morning that just these

incentives, that is in the Senate bill, if it was in the House bill,

would provide safety—would eliminate the deaths of 1,200 people,

you are saying, just by giving incentives to the State. And so I

think that points up toward this question I have.

I understand your agency is working on a rulemaking on rollovers, occupant ejection, door locks, and side impacts. What are the

chances that these rulemakings will not be completed, or will be

completed?

Mr. RUNGE. Well, Mr. Chairman, the side impact rule, we—it has

been through the NPRM. It has been through the comment period,

and we expect to publish that early in 2006, I hope before the crocuses pop through the grass. There is nothing higher on our rulemaking priority plan. We believe that that is 850 lives a year. And

keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, we don’t have a head—our side impact center does not recognize the brain, even though 58 percent

of our side impacts involve brain injury. So this—we have to do

this. This is absolutely a must-do, and it will be done.

With regard to rollover, that is a little more complex, because it

involves not only structural integrity and safety belt use and safety

belt performance and ejection mitigation, but also involves preventing the rollover from happening in the first place. Hence, our

emphasis on electronic stability control and developing a performance test that will keep vehicles on the pavement. Ninety percent

of those rollovers—that is a serious one there—90 percent of those

rollovers occur when the vehicle leaves the road and trips. So if we

can keep vehicles on the road with technology, then a lot of the

other improvements that we can make in the structure of vehicles

will be less important.

Mr. STEARNS. Maybe I should ask this question first. Generally,

what do you believe that mandated rulemakings, I mean your philosophy, are they in the best interests of your agency coming from

Congress? Perhaps what is the role of Congress when it comes to

your agency, you know, other than just the, strictly, funding of

your agency, what should be our position on this rulemaking? You

might just establish that from the get-go.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we enjoy working with

the committee on things that are important to the members, and

we like to come over and share the data, and you know, lay it all

out, so you can see what the most important things are that we believe, based on the data we have to do. The problem—and I think

we have done that. We have done that with the Senate committee

15

to the point that the language that is in the Senate, I don’t believe

is going to be particularly harmful for NHTSA’s functioning.

However, you yourself pointed out that in the mid-90’s, NHTSA

had to turn on a dime to address airbags that were overpowered,

and that consumed a tremendous amount of resources in the rulemaking and the research part of our agency, which is, again, not

very big. So things got delayed. Now, if we have, you know, 6 years

worth of mandates, our ability to turn on a dime and address

emerging safety problems is severely impaired.

So we would prefer to use a rulemaking priority plan to do this,

which again, we will update annually or at least biannually with

input from the committee, with input from public comment, based

on data and cost/benefit. That is the way we would prefer to set

our rulemaking priorities.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, you hear from a lot of members who are talking about back-over technology, cameras and radars that are being

evaluated. I guess is this an example of huge amount of costs,

huge—optimal solution not provided. In your opinion, what is being

done in this area, and how do you feel in terms of if we moved in

that area of rulemaking?

Mr. RUNGE. Back-over injuries and deaths are a serious matter,

and we take them very seriously. The difficulty is, and you know,

it is easy to be—to tell somebody you have got to collect data on

these things.

Mr. STEARNS. Some automotive companies have already bought

these cameras, I think in Europe.

Mr. RUNGE. Yes. Well, there are some that are available in the

United States as well.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. So you can get it as an option——

Mr. RUNGE. Sure.

Mr. STEARNS. [continuing] in your SUV.

Mr. RUNGE. There are vehicles that if a parent wants to—if they

are concerned about this, they can go buy those vehicles. You

know, my kids are 21 and 18 and out of the house. I have less need

of a back-over technology in my vehicle. So I may not choose to pay

that $1,500. So again, you know, we believe that market forces can

work in this area. The data collection is difficult, because, you

know—and we talked to Ms. Fennell about this a lot, and her careful scouring of LexisNexis and all the clips and so forth, but we

have to rely on national data. So we went to the National Health

Statistics, NCHS, and said we need all of the, you know, all the

codes that could be strangulation from power windows, back-overs,

and so forth, and you know, we just recently received 1998 birth

certificates, and we had a person who pored over every single birth

certificate, and you know, it was tremendously labor-intensive. So

if we do this, if Congress tells us to do this——

Mr. STEARNS. You mean a death certificate instead of a birth certificate.

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, I am sorry. Death certificate.

Mr. STEARNS. Instead of a birth certificate.

Mr. RUNGE. Sorry. Sorry. I am just a physician. They pored over

these death certificates, and you know, were able to find a small

number of these incidents. Now, every incident is important, and

we don’t want to diminish that by any means.

16

Mr. STEARNS. Under 10, you mean?

Mr. RUNGE. Well, let us see here. There were 123 backing

deaths.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. RUNGE. 1998. 44 percent of those were children aged 1 to 4.

So about 60 kids.

Mr. STEARNS. Sixty kids.

Mr. RUNGE. In 1998.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. RUNGE. And many were adults over 70. Now, to—technology—you know, we don’t want to presuppose that a technology

is going to be 100 percent effective, either, at preventing these

things.

Mr. STEARNS. No.

Mr. RUNGE. So you know, when you look at the cost and benefits

here, it gets a little tough to justify.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, and also, I, you know, there is a lot of politics

involved here, so for us to tell you what to do in this area, we need

to hear your best judgment first, before we just run it out, and you

are saying right now that the public can get this, if a mom and dad

want this protection, for $1,500. Instead of buying a new car, they

can get a used car, could they get it retrofitted or not?

Mr. RUNGE. Well, there are cameras that will fit, for instance, in

the hitches, trailer hitches.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. RUNGE. There are mirrors. There are technologies that people can use in their vehicles. And in fact, you know, we are seeing—we just protected the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum for vehicles and

ultrahigh bandwidth radar. Mercedes just tested a vehicle with us

a few weeks ago, where it can actually detect objects around the

vehicle.

Mr. STEARNS. This is a radar rather than camera. So in the end,

maybe radar is a solution as we move on, that radar could make

cameras obsolete, because the radars would be much more efficient.

Mr. RUNGE. Certainly could be, but again, this is research that

will be done by the industry, and we will watch it very carefully.

But this is a tough problem.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Thank you. My time has expired. The ranking

member.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are you opposed to data collection for non-traffic accidents, then?

Mr. RUNGE. Certainly not.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. So I got the impression that it would be

overly difficult to collect that information.

Mr. RUNGE. Well, we don’t know how we would do it right now.

In a—to get data sources that would be acceptable to the Data

Quality Act, which you all passed, and so forth. And we would have

to really look at this closely. Right now, the only data source that

we know or that we can rely on is the National Center for Health

Statistics, which is years behind in the death certificate. And there

is no word search capability that we know of that will get to this

problem. So we think we just don’t know how we would do this,

other than the method that Ms. Fennell uses, which is to scour

press clips. And, you know, and that has its own limitations.

17

Ms. SCHACKOWSKY. Although using that method, a private citizen

did find 523 children involved in those kinds of accidents, 165 dead,

in 2004 alone. I mean, I don’t know how big a problem has to get.

And I don’t know if you saw Good Morning America, the segment

where they had—I think on that, the time I saw it, 17 children

were huddled behind an SUV, and with all the equipment on it

that was available, you couldn’t see any of them. It was really just

amazing. It was just shocking. And they were saying how many

kids do you think were back there, and it turned out there were

17. And it seems that minimally, collecting this information so that

we do know the scope of the problem ought to be a project that we

begin immediately. I wonder what kind of progress we can make

on that now.

Mr. RUNGE. That is a great question, and we would be happy to

work with the committee on that, Ms. Schakowsky. You know, interestingly, over in the appropriations side, we got appropriations

language that just came out last week that suggested we might be

collecting too much data. So we have really got to get together on

this, and decide, you know, what it is exactly that we should do.

We are not authorized right now, though we certainly could do this

on our own, to figure out some data system for off-road, off, out of

traffic, motor vehicle related injuries, but right now, that is not in

our mandate. And it is certainly within your power to change that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I think it would—it is important that we

don’t leave the impression that any car can be either purchased

with or retrofitted to include this technology right now. Am I correct with that, that I can’t go to an auto dealer and say, and I want

these features in my, I don’t know, maybe my Ford Focus wagon,

I can do that. I don’t know. But they are not universally available.

Isn’t that true?

Mr. RUNGE. I believe that you can buy small cameras, and in

fact, I saw Ms. Greenberg here from Consumers Union. We were

up there in Connecticut at their facility a couple years ago, looking

at some of the aftermarket potential.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Aftermarket, but——

Mr. RUNGE. Right.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Originally, when I purchase a car, it is not

even an option in all cars, is it?

Mr. RUNGE. It is not an option in all cars. Neither is anything

else, for that matter, but there are vehicles out there that you can

go. If a back-over camera is important to you, you can buy it, when

you are ready to buy a new car.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, but seatbelts are available. Basic safety

features are available in all cars. I wanted to just point out that

while you emphasize that 90 percent of crashes are caused by

human factors, inattention, speeding, psychological, physiological

impairment, et cetera, of course that is true, and that is why seatbelts, in some ways, take account of that, take that into consideration, the fact that human factors will lead people to accidents. But

those built-in safety features will mitigate against the result of

those personal human factors. And so I would think that we would

want to move as quickly as possible, in terms of rollover accidents,

the kinds of timetables that are in the Senate bill.

18

Now, I understand you gave an example of the airbags. That was

a special case, where you had to turn on a dime, but were there

not those kinds of special cases? Are you saying that the timetables

and the deadlines that are in the Senate bill are unreasonable, that

it is not possible to meet them? And if so, what are your timetables

for dealing with these issues?

Mr. RUNGE. The only one—the only deadline that is absolutely

preposterous is the implement labeling requirements, the vehicle

safety labeling requirements, the so-called stars on cars, that tells

us to issue a plan by January 1, 2006. And I understand that—I

hope that the committee will be sensitive to that. The rest of the

deadlines in the Senate language, frankly, are certainly workable,

and we, you know, we have other, bigger fish to fry than worrying

about those deadlines.

Ms. SCHACKOWSKY. And what would those be?

Mr. RUNGE. Than worrying about those deadlines. They are not

unreasonable.

Ms. SCHACKOWSKY. And what are the bigger fish to fry that you

mean?

Mr. RUNGE. If we get primary belt law incentives, your State will

get $31 million, and we will be able to get a lot more primary laws

in this country, and save 1,275 people a year.

Ms. SCHACKOWSKY. So you see that as the—your No. 1 priority

now is to do that. But you wouldn’t oppose, other than the October

1, 2006 deadline, in the Senate—no, it was—what did you say?

Mr. RUNGE. January.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. January.

Mr. RUNGE. January 1.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. As a—those other deadlines would be acceptable to you?

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, ma’am. The other deadlines are certainly workable.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much.

Mr. RUNGE. Sure.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. Ms. Myrick is recognized.

Ms. MYRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Runge is from my

district, and he literally has spent his lifetime working on saving

lives, because when he was at our largest hospital, in charge of

emergency and trauma, he really made our whole region aware of

what we needed to do, ourselves, to help save lives. And so I was

delighted when he came up here, because I knew that he would do

what he believes in, and that is, do everything he can to save lives.

And we appreciate the job you’ve been doing at the agency, and I

want to thank you.

But I wanted to ask. I know we don’t want, a lot of us don’t feel

strongly about mandating things, and you have already said that

causes you some difficulty. But are there other tools or authorities

that this committee might be able to provide to you that would be

helpful in your quest of saving lives?

Mr. RUNGE. Representative Myrick, I am not used to getting

such a wonderful, open-ended question like that, and it frankly sort

of caught me on my heels. We do have a really good relationship

with your committee staff, and it is a relationship that has developed over time, and I think that there is a confidence that has deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
19

veloped mutually, about when we see needs, we aren’t shy. And in

fact, neither is your committee staff.

So if you would allow me the opportunity to think about that a

little bit, I would love to give you back a real answer.

Ms. MYRICK. I appreciate it very much, and again, we are glad

you are here. Thanks for the good job you do. I am finished, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. The ranking member of the

full committee, Mr. Dingell, is recognized.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your courtesy. I begin by asking unanimous consent that I may be permitted

to insert an opening statement in the record.

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John Dingell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I am pleased we are holding this hearing on the ‘‘Reauthorization of the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).’’ This will aid us in examining the

resource needs of the agency, and its current priorities. I have always viewed reauthorization of an agency, which is for a fixed period of time, to be separate from

decisions to change the underlying laws which the agency administers. Should Congress, during the reauthorization process, consider writing new laws for the agency

to administer, we should be guided by several factors:

First, we must guard against regulating before the experts have an adequate understanding of both the problem we seek to solve and how proposed solutions affect

overall safety and public health. Time after time, when NHTSA has been forced to

regulate without a complete understanding of the problem, the unintended consequences have been grave. For example, the issue of air bags has been revisited

more than once to ensure that children and small adults are not harmed by a system intended to protect. Good intentions alone are not sufficient for regulating vehicle safety.

Second, we must not divert resources away from regulations and innovations with

the most potential to save lives. Every time Congress mandates that NHTSA promulgate a rule on a specific subject, there are fewer resources for NHTSA to spend

on other safety priorities. As information and research improve, we should allow the

expert agency adequate flexibility to determine what actions will save the greatest

number of lives.

Third, we must recognize that irresponsible regulation of the automobile will sacrifice important manufacturing jobs in the United States. At a time when this country is hemorrhaging jobs, we must take extraordinary care to ensure that new regulations are both appropriate and implemented wisely.

There are times when legislative action is necessary. We worked diligently in this

Committee on the TREAD Act, and that law continues to yield fruit. The Early

Warning System established under that Act helps NHTSA and manufacturers identify problems sooner and recall affected vehicles faster.

Due in part to the TREAD Act’s success, times have changed. NHTSA has established an aggressive agenda for vehicle safety that will be implemented on a responsible timetable. I commend Dr. Runge for establishing a multi-year priority plan for

vehicle safety. NHTSA’s diligent progress toward implementing these safety initiatives and Dr. Runge’s personal efforts to increase seat-belt use are saving lives.

When the Senate proposed a NHTSA reauthorization last Congress, Chairman

Barton and I were profoundly concerned that it would supplant the expertise of the

engineers and scientists at NHTSA with the opinions of lawyers and activists. The

version presented to us this Congress, however, appears to have moved in the proper direction and deserves careful examination.

I look forward to working closely with Chairman Barton on this important matter,

and I thank the witnesses for their testimony today.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Runge, welcome to

the committee. You are asking for more resources for your agency

to do the job that we have commanded you to do. Would you please

identify what those are for the record. And so that we can look to

20

see what we have to do to help you do your job the way you want

to do it. Now, I would note that you want to regulate hydrogen vehicles, and you want authority to harmonize our regulations with

those of foreign governments. Would you submit for the record,

please, some statements as to what it is you want there?

Mr. RUNGE. Absolutely.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Doctor, with regard to the mandated

rulemakings that the Senate has included in its bill. First of all,

what amongst these are matters on which your agency is not now

working? Are there any of them?

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, sir, Mr. Dingell, there are. We—there are several areas here, which we are working, but are not our highest priority. For instance, back-over——

Mr. DINGELL. What you are telling me is that some of these are

things that you don’t view as being high priority. And I guess you

are telling me that establishing high priority for things that you

might have lower priority will, perhaps, deter you from doing

things that might be more important, in terms of safety of motor

vehicles and the safety of the motoring public. Is that right?

Mr. RUNGE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Would you submit that to us for the

record? Out of respect for our chairman, I don’t want to clutter the

time of the committee with my questions and answers if I can get

it in the record. Now, would you tell us, also, which of the Senate

mandates are on your priority list, and which are not on your priority list? Would you submit that to us, please?

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would note, Doctor, that if we work with

the Senate, we are going to have to address the question of how

the language should be best done. I think that you are probably

going to need a certain amount of flexibility in terms of what the

language would do. Is that correct?

Mr. RUNGE. We would prefer to be able to respond to emergencies and turn on a dime, yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. For example, I note that the mandate is that you

come up with a final rule, and would it not be better that you were

to be mandated to come up with a final action?

Mr. RUNGE. That would certainly increase our flexibility.

Mr. DINGELL. That would give you more flexibility, and you

would still have to come to a decision on matters prior to the time.

Mr. RUNGE. That would be very helpful, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I note that there are agreements providing

better and more information to the agency, which might come faster than would occur without them. Is that—and I am referring now

to voluntary agreements that are executed inside the industry with

the insurance industry. Is that correct?

Mr. RUNGE. There is no question that the industry can move

faster than we can regulate.

Mr. DINGELL. And these have actually made for more safety,

faster and better. Is that not so?

Mr. RUNGE. We have good example of that. We also have examples where we have gone slightly divergent, and see the need to

regulate. But yes, sir, the timing is absolutely correct.

21

Mr. DINGELL. So I assume, Doctor, that these voluntary agreements inside the industry, and with the insurance industry, and

with your agency, enable the auto manufacturers to accomplish

your purpose of safety better. They enable NHTSA to understand

the problem, and to bring forward potential solutions in a faster

and more effective manner. Is that right?

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. You know, the research community is fairly

small, and the research engineers know what each other are doing,

and we have a very constructive dialog with the safety people in

the industry.

Mr. DINGELL. Do I have any reason to assume that the mandates

that are here would in any way interfere with the voluntary agreements which you are executing with the companies?

Mr. RUNGE. I would say, in general, sir, that the more restrictive

mandates are, the less we are able to evolve into the best path.

Some of these do presuppose that we already know the answer to

the question before we have adequately researched it. Having said

that, the most—as much flexibility as you can give us, if you all

see the need to mandate these particularly safety problems, would

be most appreciated.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Doctor, I note that you are beginning to work

on rollover prevention and crashworthiness. Will voluntary standards help you here as you proceed about your efforts to do the regulation of these questions inside the agency?

Mr. RUNGE. Mr. Dingell, in a couple of these instances with rollover, I do believe that the industry deserves a level playing field,

and I do think that that is an appropriate place for regulation,

rather than voluntary standards. There are always things that the

industry can do voluntarily to go beyond the minimum standard,

but I do believe that manufacturers that do the right thing, that

might be a little more costly, deserve a level playing field to make

sure that they are not at a competitive disadvantage.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Chairman, I know I am

transgressing upon your time. I hope that you will forgive me for

one final question.

Dr. Runge, I want to refer to your experience with regard to

mandated regulations on specific subjects. And I have the impression that this oft-time develops a situation where delay with regard

to product plans, for economic reasons, by the industry, will occur

until they understand what the new requirements might be. And

I would also ask while the mandates in the Senate bill may be

similar to your priority plans, is it fair to say that a pattern of Congressional mandates would discourage voluntary agreements in the

future, and possibly delay the advance in safety in motor vehicles?

Mr. RUNGE. If we get to a point where we think we know the

best answer, and it turns out not to be the wrong answer, after

public comment, but we are still under a rulemaking deadline for

a final rule, there are—it is very difficult to work around those

deadlines.

Mr. DINGELL. So I guess, Doctor, that—in courtesy to our chair,

you are telling me yes.

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.

22

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished colleague. Mr. Otter.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Doctor,

for being here today. We have, as you might recall, at the—met in

various capacities before, when I was on the Transportation Committee, and even though I know most of your questions and answers today have dealt with vehicle safety, I want to go to another

part of highway safety that I don’t think we are paying near

enough attention to, and of course, it goes back over all these

years. I just did some figuring, and there is a section of highway

in Idaho, Highway 95, which runs, traverses from the south, at the

Nevada line, clear to Canada, some 680 miles, in fact, in 1939, was

designated as part of the Alcan Highway, which was a total of

26,000 miles. But twice as many people are killed on a small section of that highway as can hide behind an SUV, every year. The

biggest holdup that we have had on that is our failure to streamline, as was promised in TEA-21, as ISTEA, and now, TEALU, or

the promise of, I should say, a streamlining process where we can

move forward on highway construction, especially, where we are

losing lives, and we are costing people. There—and in the insurance industry. Is the Department, has the Department begun moving forward to at least help the Transportation Department and

the construction side now, and design now, I am talking about,

move forward on some streamlining, so that we are not 10 years

waiting to find out if a bug or a piece of grass or something like

that is going to be eliminated as a result of our widening or making

our highways more safe.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Otter. I—this falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Administration. But I can tell you

that Administrator Peters has had at one of her top priorities to

get effective environmental streamlining into the reauthorization

process. I am not expert in this, and I really can’t speak to the provision of the bill. I do know that it is very high on our priority list.

Mr. OTTER. I had noticed that some of the very same communities that are so enthusiastic about designing what Detroit puts

out are the same communities that are resistant to allow us to go

forward with the design of our highways, with the construction of

our highways. In fact, the year that I served on the Transportation

Committee, 2001 and 2002, that term, we had some $14 billion in

highway construction funds backed up waiting for a decision from

some agency of the Federal Government, relatively mostly to an environmental consideration. Now, I think that is—in fact, as I recall,

Christie Todd Whitman’s successor from New Jersey came and testified that they had been waiting some 11 years for a turnoff, an

off-ramp, where they had been killing about 19 people a year, because of the absence of that turnoff. And I still don’t know yet

today if they have been able to mitigate two and a half acres of

swamp in order to save 19 lives, and I don’t expect you to know

that specific either. But I would just hope that if it is not within

your purview, I would just hope that you wouldn’t pass the opportunity to at least put an asterisk at the bottom of a page, and say

exactly what could be done or should be done. No matter how many

more seatbelts we put in cars, or airbags we put in cars, or how

wider we make the track on a vehicle, unless they are running

across a safe highway, and safe as they can possibly be, it is not

23

going to make any difference what we mandate from Detroit, if we

are not mandating the same things, as far as the streamlining

process that we were promised in the past.

So I would just mention that, and I hope, if you get the opportunity, that you could add to—the idea that no matter how safe we

make these vehicles, if our highways aren’t also enjoying the maximum amount of attention for their safety, it is not going to make

any difference. That is just a final statement. I don’t expect you to

respond.

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

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on

two matters that our ranking member, Mr. Dingell, referred to

quickly, and just ask a little bit further on those. In your written

testimony, I was interested in your references to hydrogen-powered

vehicles, and pleased that there are plans to make this a priority

area for safety research, and I wondered if you could provide some

more detail regarding the timeline for this research, when you

would expect any rulemaking process to occur, and whether you

have sufficient statutory authority to pursue this research and

rulemaking.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you. With respect to your last question, yes,

we do have the statutory authority. We have not had the appropriation to do specific testing for hydrogen yet. However, we have,

you know, it is funny how this happens in the Federal Government,

we have found some money to begin research into hydrogen fuel

safety systems. You know, the idea here is, is that the—that we

hear from Europe and from the manufacturers here that there is

a lot of component testing going on, and you know, 10,000 PSI

tanks, 8,000 PSI tanks, they don’t leak and so forth. But we are

not going to be happy until we do a test of the full fuel system. We

don’t know exactly what the effects of a 1,500 degree invisible

flame will do to a vehicle or its occupants, but we need to find out.

We already have test fleets that are on the roads of this country

right now, and frankly, we are behind. So we intend to do full vehicle testing at some point, particularly crash testing, but it will depend upon the availability of vehicles, and there are so few right

now, and they are so expensive that we don’t think that is practical. So we are going to continue to look at the fuel delivery, both

the low pressure and the high pressure side, and try to get some

science behind what might turn into a future regulation.

Ms. BALDWIN. On, I guess a related matter, you noted in your

testimony that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to—quoting, authorized to participate and cooperate in international activities to enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety.

Should I take from that that under current law, the Secretary is

not permitted to engage in such discussions?

Mr. RUNGE. There are two things that happen internationally.

One is vehicle regulatory harmonization, and for that, we do have

the authority, and we are—we have a very active program of harmonized research and harmonized rulemaking. When I found out

about this, and I was educated on it when I first got here in 2001,

I suggested that, since nothing had really happened on the 1998

agreement, which is when this agreement was signed in Geneva,

24

that perhaps we should set a deadline of November 2004 for a global technical regulation, and we, in fact, didn’t meet that on a subject which is door locks and retention systems, which is part of our

rollover injury prevention plan. So that is one side, and it is working, it is slow, as international negotiations are, but it does work.

The other place, though, that is much more, I think, important

to the Secretary, and frankly, where the fruit is much lower hanging, is in the area of human factor vehicle safety worldwide. And

worldwide, we lost over a million people, and that is a conservative

estimate, because we just have to use estimates. We don’t have

data collection systems in many developing countries. But as countries motorize, which is the second thing they do after they get

money. The first is telecommunications. Then, they start transportation. And the easiest way for them to enhance their transportation is to buy vehicles, without the road infrastructure, without

safety features, and so forth. So our intention is to participate with

the World Health Organization, to follow along on a U.N. resolution which was passed in April of last year, to identify best practices, to allow economies in countries that are developing to try to

stem the tide of traffic fatality in their countries. We are seeing

huge problems in places like China and Thailand, and Indonesia,

and all across Africa and Latin America, where just the basics of

a central agency of government to help with this, or the use of safety belts, or impaired driving, or pedestrian—separating pedestrians

from vehicles. All that is lacking. So this is part of the President’s

good neighbor policy. We would like to reach out to these nations,

and to be able to provide technical assistance and best practices for

them.

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. One quick question. I am almost out of

time, so maybe you can answer in writing later. You have talked

about human factor. In my district, in Wisconsin, it is not unusual

for accidents to be caused by the animal factor. I see white-tailed

deer on the side of the road very frequently. Obviously, it can be

very dangerous. What sort of extent of research do you have in that

arena?

Mr. RUNGE. We have been party to testing of some of these

things, like whistles, that don’t work. There are ideas about reflectors that scare deer, and you know, we are aware of these things,

but it is a tough problem, you know. Once again, I think that we

are sort of faced with treating the animal like any other obstruction that you might get, whether it is a tree or a post or a guardrail, and that is, is to buckle up and drive sober, and control your

speed. And unfortunately, these crashes are going to occur, and we

really don’t have a method to keep those animals away from the

roadway.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The gentlelady

from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank

you for your well prepared and timely delivered testimony, that allows us to kind of work ahead. I will have to tell you, before coming

to Congress, I was in the State Senate in Tennessee, and part of

the leadership team on our Transportation Committee in the State,

so was familiar with reading your rules, the regulations, the

memos that came down. So it is nice to visit with you.

25

Ms. Baldwin was talking a little bit about human error, and I

find it so interesting, you know. In your testimony, you were talking about 90 percent of the crashes, and the human error factor

there. And I want to talk with you about three quick points, stability control, and the benefits of that technology. In your testimony, I think you said it is 61 percent of the vehicles now are—

have the technology. Is that correct?

Mr. RUNGE. I don’t think that is correct, and I don’t have the

number, but it is much smaller than that.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Much smaller than that.

Mr. RUNGE. I am sure that Mr. Webber may be able to fill in

that hole for you.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Okay. So you are not sure of the exact number

of cars. In a situation like the stability control, it seems that the

market and the consumers’ desire for safe cars is pushing the technology forward in the vehicles, and is the market driving that, or

is—are you all, with forced regulation, driving the desire for that,

and what do you see as your participation in that component?

Mr. RUNGE. I suspect—well, I don’t suspect—I know for a fact

that many vehicles on the road do have electronic stability control,

but they are mostly at the higher end of the price spectrum. Some

manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to put electronic stability

control in all of their vehicles, namely GM, by 2009. I think that

Toyota said in their truck fleet by 2007, and so forth. So it is

spreading across the manufacturers. For anything that has this

much efficacy, has a 63 percent reduction in SUV fatal crashes, or

a 30 percent reduction in passenger car fatal crashes, this is the

kind of cost effectiveness that is smart government for regulating.

And we would want to level the playing field to ensure that everybody who buys a car has access to technologies that keep vehicles

on the pavement.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Okay. And in that vein, getting that information out about safe cars with safercar.gov website, what are your

efforts on advertising that? How are you working with auto retailers and also the manufacturers on that effort?

Mr. RUNGE. We have a marketing plan, and I talk about it everywhere I go, you know. It is on this lapel pin I have got. It is everything that we do, we talk about safercar.gov. You know, bless their

hearts, the folks at Lowe’s Motor Speedway last month gave us a

courtesy sponsorship for the Quaker State and Lube 200 brought

to you by Click It or Ticket, and we talked about safercar.gov for

4 hours. You know, it is—you know, we have a limited marketing

budget, obviously, but you are exactly correct. Unless consumers

avail themselves of the crash test ratings and the rollover ratings,

it is very difficult to get the message out. So yesterday morning,

I was on the evening news and the morning shows, talking about

the new rollover ratings. You know, 4—3 years ago, there was one

four star rollover rated SUV. Now, there are 24. So you know, the

market is working. For whatever reason, the manufacturers are

making vehicles that get better crash ratings, and I hope that, in

fact, it is market forces at work, and not simply my bully pulpit.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Well, if you are blessing their hearts, you have

got a little Southern in your soul, so you must know about driving

some cars. All right. A couple more things before my time expires.

26

Looking at a couple of other components. When you are—the Senate bill has—requesting a final ruling July 1, 2008, on the side impact crash improvements. And then, also, power window switches

by April 1, 2007. If these were removed, when would you expect to

make your ruling on this?

Mr. RUNGE. With respect to side impact, we will beat that. We

will leave it in the dust. With respect to power window switches,

you know, we just finished a final rule in September that will require manufacturers to have switches that children cannot kneel on

and roll the window up, which in our review of the death certificate

data, is the problem. Now, there is a political—there is some political movement toward getting us to get rid of recessed rocker

switches that a child’s knee cannot contact, because they might

stick their toe in somehow, and you know, lift it up, and entrap

themselves, which we have never seen a case of. So this is a mandate that we don’t think needs to be mandated. And you know, we

will be happy to look at it again, as we have been looking at it before, but the problem is fixed. So if that goes away, the rule needs

to go away as well.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Runge. I respect

your work, and I thank you for coming.

As you know, Doctor, I authored the original amendment to the

TREAD Act, which directed NHTSA to draft and implement a new

regulation that would require all motor vehicles to be equipped

with a warning system that would alert motorists when a tire was

significantly under-inflated.

Mr. RUNGE. I do have a vague recollection of that, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. And, of course, the reason it is important is that

when it is under-inflated, it could lead to de-treading of the tire,

and what we saw in the Ford Firestone incident is that then causes

accidents as the car goes off the road and kills the passengers. As

you know, there is a lawsuit that has been filed by the tire industry and Public Citizen which raises several safety concerns.

Right now, we are here in June of 2005, on an amendment which

I successfully authored back in 2000, which targeted the original

implementation of this critical safety provision for 2002. The delay,

in my view, not only has repercussions for consumer safety in the

United States, but also represents a financial hit to the companies

and manufacturers that have invested in this technology, and that

have increased their production levels in anticipation of a launch

this year.

My question to you is whether NHTSA has considered other potential avenues of action to address the concerns raised in the suit,

instead of fighting it in court, and facing the specter of having to

completely rewrite the regulations for a second time. And is there

any way, any other way, to resolve this, other than through litigation at this point?

Mr. RUNGE. Mr. Markey, we believe that the rule that we finally

arrived at, which as you well know, is very similar to the original

rule that we wrote, which by the way, if that had gone through,

all vehicles would have TPMSes in them now, and we wouldn’t be

having this conversation.

27

There is a real concern that if—that these—we don’t want them

to false alarm, and to become an annoyance, and relive 1974 all

over again with safety belt buzzers and this sort of thing. Our engineers have done the best they can to make sure that they have a

balance between TPMSes that will warn people when there is a

safety problem and warn them when their tires are under-inflated

to the point where they are really under-inflated but not a safety

problem. They really believe that the margins that they have constructed around the compliance test are fully sufficient to correct

the safety problem. And manufacturers, when they make these

things, they will make them so that they alarm well before it gets

to 25 percent under-inflation, but that is the area that we are going

to run the compliance test on. We want to make sure that everyone

does it at least by then. And there are some issues with, you know,

whether it is—whether we let out 1 PSI or 2 PSI that are in a

world of arcane engineering minutiae that we are going to be looking at very closely. And I think we will revisit some of those technical engineering issues, but I think they are very confident that

they have solved the safety problem with this rule, and I hope that

it will stand, and I hope the court will throw it out.

Mr. MARKEY. Will the vehicle manufacturers be required to still

begin phasing in the tire pressure monitoring systems to their vehicle lines in October of this year, or will they be able to postpone

it due to the lawsuit?

Mr. RUNGE. The final rule is the final rule, and they will still be

required to phase them in October.

Mr. MARKEY. So beginning this October.

Mr. RUNGE. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. And it will continue. Thank you. And you also, in

the Wall Street Journal, recently said that you are going to do

some new fuel economy standards that will save billions of gallons

of gasoline, and it will still be fair to the industry. What is your

timeframe for that overhaul?

Mr. RUNGE. We have a deadline for a final rule in April 1, 2006.

Mr. MARKEY. Have you consulted with the environmental community?

Mr. RUNGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. What details can you share with us?

Mr. RUNGE. None.

Mr. MARKEY. Are you considering the sort of weight-based CAFE

standards approach that has one for SUVs, one for midsize, and

one for lower?

Mr. RUNGE. Well, if you recall, the advance notice of proposed

rulemaking, we ask for comment on attribute-based systems, and

that is certainly part of our deliberation.

Mr. MARKEY. I would recommend to you that you not move with

the different categories, that you keep the merged approach. I

think otherwise, we are going to wind up with 50 percent of all

people buying SUVs up in this higher category, and we are going

to wind up with, unfortunately, lower fuel economy standards in totality. I think the goal has to be for us to improve the fuel economy

standards. SUVs, and we learn it again in today’s testimony, SUVs

are huge gas guzzlers, which is an environmental and import problem for us. They are more likely, three and a half times more likeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
28

ly, to kill people, as—in other cars, that we have learned, and they

are also more likely to back over kids, and to kill them. So this is

an area where, you know, SUVs are always looking for special

treatment, that we have to avoid it. And I will just say that when

I was——

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr.—Dr. Runge

has to leave, and we have two other members——

Mr. MARKEY. Can I say——

Mr. STEARNS. [continuing] and——

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have gone over less than any person thus far——

Mr. STEARNS. I know, and what happens is——

Mr. MARKEY. [continuing] including the chairman, the ranking

members, and any of the other members.

Mr. STEARNS. I[continuing] but—in all deference to you, I have

been in hearings where we have been generous, and I just, out of

deference to the other members, if you don’t mind, if you can sum

up in the next 15 seconds.

Mr. MARKEY. I can do it in 15 seconds, and——

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. MARKEY. [continuing] it will just be to——

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. MARKEY. [continuing] say that I was run over by a car when

I was 5 years old. This SUV issue is huge. I drove an ice cream

truck working my way through college for every single summer for

100 days. When you back a truck out of a backyard, which is what

I had, a huge ice cream truck, it is a magnet for kids. But I was

the only person in the neighborhood or the city with that kind of

a vehicle. We now have tens of millions of SUVs backing out of

driveways every day, and kids are just there, and I had to go out

a half a foot every time just to keep making sure I wasn’t hitting

anyone, so this is a huge issue. We have to deal with it, and——

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. And the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr.

Bass.

Mr. BASS. I will pass.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from New Hampshire passes. Mr.

Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. I know you have to go. Thank you for being here

just in 30 seconds. I understand you are going to Detroit. Great

place in the world. Spend a lot of time there, spend money. Buy

stuff while you are there, including a car.

One word of caution. There is some talk that you may go to a

watered down version of TPMS. Let me just give you my strongest

commendation not to do that. We have come a long way, when you

are in a process of putting this thing out. And I hope it is soon,

because this—the litigation is starting to kill the folks who are involved in this, and I think you know that. We need some resolution

on this. Don’t water it down. Have a great trip to Detroit. Come

back with a CTS Cadillac built in Lansing, Michigan. Thank you.

Mr. STERNS. I thank my colleague. Dr. Runge, your patience in

helping us by changing your travel plans is appreciated, and with

that, we will conclude the first panel, and now, we will move to the

29

second panel, but before we do, as I mentioned earlier, we will have

opening statements from members who wish to put their opening

statements in the record, or to give them. At this point, is there

any member who would like to give an opening statement who has

not given one?

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

As I was saying, when I was driving my ice cream truck, that

it really was like an attractive nuisance, okay. And I realize that,

you know, because you could not see little kids. You just couldn’t.

And of course, I was especially sensitive, because an ice cream

truck is a huge electromagnet of ice cream that draws kids from

streets away.

And we now live in a world where, unlike automobiles, where

you can see out the back window, and you can see who’s there, you

just can’t. And we need to have some mechanism here by which we

deal with this very real problem that exists in this SUV era. And

of course, we are going to wind up with a situation where SUVs

are not going to be purchased as much as they have been in the

past, because the price of gasoline is just skyrocketing. We are up

to $60 per barrel now. Many people believe that OPEC is targeting

$70 or $80 a barrel over the next year or 2. So we are going to see

a change in behavioral patterns. They are testing as a Nation to

see how far we will go before we will revolt. We obviously haven’t

revolted yet, but when General Motors is at junk bond status, and

Ford is at junk bond status, you have a real problem in our country, and so you are going to see a shift, somewhat, in the consumer

purchasing habits. But nonetheless, we will still have SUVs as a

big part of our marketplace, and these issues, especially the issue

that was mentioned earlier, where if you are in a passenger car,

you are three and a half times more likely to die in a crash with

a regular—with an SUV. An SUV passenger is three and a half

times more likely to survive than a passenger vehicle in a regular

automobile. There is a big issue, especially if people start to buy

Priuses and other cars that are being manufactured by Toyota and

Nissan and other manufacturers.

So as people now say, I am—that they are going to respond to

the high price of gasoline, they buy smaller cars. The SUVs are out

there, still in gas guzzlers, and in the crash, you are going to have

thousands of people who die because we are not building in the

proper kinds of protections for these people. So we have the greatest responsibility here, Mr. Chairman. We can save more lives on

this committee than just about any other place in Congress or

America. But we have to be cognizant of it. People are going to be

moving back to smaller cars. They are going to be vulnerable. The

SUVs will kill them, and we need to have a discussion about it. Because the automotive manufacturers, especially the American automotive manufacturers, have not provided a safe alternative to the

SUV at this point. So it is a big discussion. This is the committee,

this is the place. We have the greatest responsibility as Americans

are being put in jeopardy, especially as the price of gasoline pushes

people toward these smaller vehicles.

I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.

30

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The American consumer approaches any and all goods and services with expectations of quality. When approaching motor vehicles, one of the highest consumer expectations is occupant safety features, only natural given the high incidence of

crash-related injury and death on our nation’s roads and highways.

The subject of today’s hearing is how effective the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been in protecting consumers from unreasonable

risk of death and injury. We are light-years ahead of where we were two decades

ago in terms of vehicle and occupant safety. But as fatality rates decrease, so too

have consumer expectations increased. Despite progress made, the United States

still experiences tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries on an annual

basis.

This hearing is especially timely given the NHTSA reauthorization language included in the Senate-passed Transportation bill. The language sets deadlines for the

completion of rulemakings in relation to side impact crash protection, rollover prevention, door locks, and fuel economy labeling procedures, just to name a few.

We owe much of our progress in vehicle safety to technological advances spurred

on by heightened consumer expectations. There is no denying we must continue considering practical and performance-based standards, but some of the testimony we

will hear today will caution against costly and unproven federal mandates that

hinder innovation, and in some cases, force manufacturers to make safety tradeoffs.

I look forward to the insight today’s panel will provide regarding the viability of

mandates contained in the Senate’s NHTSA reauthorization package. I am hopeful

we will also be able to explore alternative approaches to helping NHTSA achieve

its consumer safety mission.

With that, I wish to thank Chairman Stearns for scheduling this important hearing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

I’d like to thank Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding

this hearing today. I’d also like to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the important topic of highway safety.

The U.S. Department of Transportation indicates there were 42,800 highway

deaths in 2004 and a staggering 3 million injuries due to traffic accidents. Unfortunately, on May 5th of this year, a good friend of mine, Joe Moreno was killed when

he lost control of his truck and it rolled over several times. He was a state representative who represented a part of Houston in my congressional district and was

on his way back to Austin for votes after having watched the Houston Rockets play

in the play offs.

Too many of us have stories like the one I just told you. However, there are always many factors to consider when accidents occur. For example, in the past, it

has been determined that faulty tires have resulted in serious accidents. Road conditions can change drastically with changing weather, and unfortunately, most traffic accidents involve human error, the most serious being driving while intoxicated.

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle reveals that Houston had 103,000 auto

accidents with 215 fatalities reported to the Houston Police Department. This does

not include figures involving the State Department of Public Safety or our county

law enforcement officers who also respond to traffic accidents. As of early this

month, Houston already had 100 fatalities for 2005. This issue is extremely important to our community.

The charges handed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration carry

enormous weight to the public safety. This is why I’m grateful that industry has

been working closely with the NHTSA to develop the best safety standards we can

possibly have.

I support the provisions in the Senate version of HR 3. The standards set forth

in this version of the bill address safety issues that often result in the most serious

injuries such as roll overs, side impact collisions and occupant ejection prevention.

These provisions will set goals and will hopefully give the NHTSA the flexibility

it needs to work with industry in bringing the best design and technology to implement these higher safety standards.

31

I would also like to note that I support any incentive the federal government can

offer states to implement primary seat belt laws. I agree with many of our experts

that getting people to use their seat belt is the quickest way to bring down the number of injuries and deaths on our highways.

I’d also like to see states have tougher enforcement on drunk driving laws. The

fact remains that alcohol has been a factor in 40 percent of all traffic fatalities last

year. Drinking and driving is still a problem in our country and we should find a

way to address it.

I look forward to working with my colleagues as we try to get the best bill we

possibly can for the public safety and for the auto industry.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Now, we will have panel No. 2. Please take your

seats. Mr. Frederick Webber is present, of Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers. Mr. Brian O’Neill is President of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Ms. Susan Pikrallidas, Vice President of

Public Affairs, AAA. And Ms. Janette Fennell, President of Kids

and Cars.

Mr. Webber, we will start with your opening statement, and welcome to all of you.

Mr. WEBBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning.

STATEMENTS OF FREDERICK L. WEBBER, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; BRIAN O’NEILL,

PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY;

SUSAN PIKRALLIDAS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

AAA; AND JANETTE E. FENNELL, PRESIDENT, KIDS AND

CARS

Mr. WEBBER. My name is Fred Webber, and I am President of

and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I am

pleased to be afforded the opportunity to offer the views of the Alliance at this important hearing.

Product safety is an area in which manufacturers compete and

seek competitive advantage. I think you coined this phrase, Mr.

Chairman, some time back when you said safety sells, and manufacturers are leveraging their safety performance and equipment in

efforts to distinguish their products from competitors. According to

the J. D. Power and Associates 2002 U.S. Automotive Emerging

Technologies study, nine of the top 10 features most desired today

by consumers in their next new vehicle are designed to enhance vehicle or occupant safety. Manufacturers are responding to this increased consumer demand for safety across their entire product

line.

For example, among 2005 models, 99 percent of new vehicles are

available with antilock brakes, 51 percent are available with electronic stability control, 74 percent are equipped with safety belt

pre-tensioners, 57 percent are equipped with rear, center, lap,

shoulder safety belts, and 75 percent are available with side airbags with chest protection. But to get it right, engineering decisions and future product decisions must rely on good data.

NHTSA’s two key traffic crash data programs, the National Automotive Sampling System and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, provide crucial information to safety planners and vehicle design engineers. The NASS program in particular has been chronically underfunded. On October 17, 2002, the Alliance and various

other safety groups sent a letter to NHTSA Administrator Runge,

32

outlining the importance of sound crash and injury data. The Alliance emphasized the need for additional funds for NASS in order

to evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures.

Consistent with the need for more real world data, Alliance

members have voluntarily installed event data recorders in their

vehicles. EDRs provide improved data to assist safety researchers,

auto engineers, government researches, and trauma doctors in

their work. EDRs can improve our collective understanding of

crash events, and lead to improvements in vehicle safety systems.

Recording certain data elements in the moments just prior to and

during a crash can contribute to the breadth and reliability of the

crash data already gathered by State and Federal Governments,

and widely used by public and private entities to study and improve transportation safety. NHTSA and NTSB have noted the important safety benefits of EDRs.

During the 2005 State legislative session, 15 States considered

legislation on EDRs. These bills either mandate that EDRs be in

vehicles, require on-off switches, or control the use of EDRs, due

to privacy concerns, a big issue. In 2004, NHTSA proposed a rulemaking for EDRs, and a final rule is expected by the end of this

year. The Alliance believes that, indeed, there should be a uniform

national policy on EDRs.

Turning to the Senate provisions on the highway bill, the Alliance supports the non-traffic incident data collection provisions in

Section 7255. Currently, there is little real world data on the magnitude, contributing causes, and circumstances of off-road events

such as back-over accidents or children being left unattended in vehicles. We need that data. If safety resources are able to get to the

most bang for the buck, then we first need to understand the problems to ensure that technological solutions are both effective and

an efficient use of scarce resources.

The Senate bill also mandates a number of major motor vehicle

safety rulemakings. Some of these rulemakings already in process

at NHTSA and consistent with its current safety priorities, you

heard this from Administrator Runge already. As a matter of policy, however, while we support and participate in the rulemaking

progress, we believe that any final rule, if appropriate, should be

based on sound data, public comment, and examination of alternatives, consideration of economic consequences, and appropriate

lead time.

By requiring that rules must be published, regardless of the public rulemaking record on that subject, the Senate bill’s approach

prejudges the outcome of the rulemaking process, and deprives

NHTSA of its authority to make safety-related assessments and determinations of rulemaking priorities. We cannot support any requirement that final rules must be issued regardless of information

provided to the agency through its public notice and comment process. The complexity of safety rulemakings requires that careful attention be accorded to the inherent tradeoffs associated with regulations. The rulemakings in the Senate bill require tradeoffs. One,

whether stronger roofs might be—might result in a higher rate of

rollover, because of added structure to the top of the vehicle, thereby raising its center of gravity, and increasing rollover risk, and

33

1 ‘‘Highway Safety—Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes.’’ United States Government Accountability Office, GAO-03-436, March 2003.

two, whether window treatments to reduce ejections for unbelted

occupants could lead to increased head and neck injuries to belted

occupants. These safety tradeoffs are not hypothetical situations or

reasons not to act. Instead, they are real, complex issues that need

to be addressed by experts. The expert agency established by the

Congress to address these issues, NHTSA, should make regulatory

decisions based on a sound public record, and not based on arbitrary deadlines or anecdotal-based solutions.

In closing, I would like to respectfully remind the committee that

motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility among government,

consumers, and vehicle manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are

more committed than ever to developing advanced safety technologies to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes. But as a Nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we give vehicle occupants properly restrained and impaired drivers off the road.

[The prepared statement of Frederick L. Webber follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED WEBBER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Fred Webber and I am President and CEO

of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to offer the views of the Alliance at this important hearing. The Alliance of

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) is a trade association of nine car and light

truck manufacturers including BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.

One out of every 10 jobs in the U.S. is dependent on the automotive industry.

SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE TO REDUCE FATALITIES AND INJURIES FROM

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES, BUT CHALLENGES REMAIN

Over the past 20 years, significant progress has been made in reducing the traffic

fatality rate. In 1981, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled

stood at 3.17. By 2003, this rate had been driven down by 53 percent to 1.48 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The level of competitiveness among automakers, which key industry observers have described as ‘‘brutal,’’ has helped to accelerate the introduction of safety features ahead of regulation, aiding in the

progress made.

Safety is an area in which manufacturers compete and seek competitive advantage. Safety ‘‘sells’’ and manufacturers are leveraging their safety performance and

equipment in efforts to distinguish their products from competitors. According to the

J. D. Power and Associates 2002 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies study,

nine of the top 10 features most desired by consumers in their next new vehicle are

designed to enhance vehicle or occupant safety and manufacturers are responding

to this increased consumer demand for safety across their entire product line.

Despite the progress made, however, data show that 42,643 people lost their lives

on U.S. highways in 2003 and almost 2.9 million were injured. Tragically, 56 percent of vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not restrained by safety belts or

child safety seats. Alcohol was a factor in 40 percent of all fatalities. This is unacceptable. As a nation, we simply must do better.

The Alliance and our members are constantly striving to enhance motor vehicle

safety. And, we continue to make progress. Each new model year brings safety improvements in vehicles of all sizes and types. But, as the Government Accountability

Office reaffirmed, vehicle factors contribute less often to crashes and their subsequent injuries than do human or roadway environmental factors.1 We will never

fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle

occupants properly restrained and impaired drivers off the road.

34

INCREASED SAFETY BELT USAGE AND PREVENTING IMPAIRED DRIVING ARE NECESSARY

TODAY TO PREVENT NEEDLESS FATALITIES AND INJURIES

The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries in

the short term is to increase the use of active occupant restraint systems, safety

belts and child safety seats. Members of the Alliance have a long and proud record

in supporting increased safety belt usage beginning in the mid 1980’s with funding

for Traffic Safety Now, a safety belt advocacy group lobbying state governments for

the passage of mandatory safety belt use laws, to participation in and funding of

the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign (Campaign). The Campaign is housed in

the National Safety Council and principally funded by the voluntary contributions

of motor vehicle manufacturers. The effectiveness of the Campaign is reflected in

the increase in belt use from 61 percent, when the Campaign was formed in 1996,

to today, with belt use at 80 percent.

This 19 percentage point increase in belt use is largely due to high visibility enforcement Mobilizations coordinated by the Campaign in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), state highway safety offices

and law enforcement agencies in all fifty states. Recently, the largest Mobilization

ever was conducted with 12,243 law enforcement agencies providing stepped up enforcement and close to $26 million in paid advertising to augment the enforcement

effort. Funding for the enforcement ads, both national and state, comes from funds

earmarked by Congress for this purpose. We believe that it is important for Congress to continue to provide this funding.

Primary enforcement safety belt use laws are significantly correlated with higher

safety belt usage levels. States with primary enforcement laws have average safety

belt usage rates approximately 11 percentage points higher than states having secondary enforcement laws. Currently, only 22 states and the District of Columbia

have primary safety belt laws. While the Campaign, through its lobbying efforts,

has contributed to primary enforcement legislation being enacted in several states,

further progress has been difficult to achieve. The Administration has requested significant funding for incentives to states passing primary enforcement laws. These

incentives are part of the Senate-passed highway bill and the Alliance strongly supports this provision. See Attachment 1. This proposal has merit and should be approved by Congress.

Impaired driving is also a significant highway safety problem. While substantial

progress in reducing impaired driving has been made in the last quarter century,

more must be done to prevent these needless tragedies. Repeat offenders are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes. The Senate-passed bill contains a provision that updates the Section 164 Repeat Offender program, consistent with current

research. It aims to provide more effective treatments to High-BAC drivers (drivers

with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of 0.15 or higher, which is almost

twice the legal limit of 0.08) and repeat offenders. High-BAC drivers are involved

in some 60% of alcohol-related highway fatalities. The Alliance strongly supports

this provision and it should be approved by Congress. See Attachment 2 1n addition

to the priority areas of increasing safety belt use and reducing impaired driving,

Congress needs to provide adequate funding for the Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Program.

ALLIANCE MEMBERS ARE AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING SAFETY ADVANCEMENTS,

COLLECTIVELY AND INDIVIDUALLY

Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public health challenge—one

that automakers are addressing daily, both individually and collectively. Alliance

members make huge investments in safer vehicle design and technology. Manufacturers not only meet, but also exceed motor vehicle safety standards in every global

market in which vehicles are sold. Manufacturers alone, not as a result of any regulatory mandate, implemented many safety features currently available on motor vehicles in the U.S. Those who claim that vehicle safety will not be advanced in the

absence of regulatory requirements are living in the past and are not paying attention to today’s market place. A partial list of voluntarily installed advanced safety

devices without or prior to regulation is attached. See Attachment 3.

The Alliance is pursuing a number of initiatives to enhance safety. We have redoubled and unified our activities to collectively address light truck-to-car collision

compatibility. On February 11-12, 2003, the Alliance and the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS) sponsored an international meeting on enhancing vehicle-tovehicle crash compatibility. On February 13, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS sent

NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge a letter summarizing the results of this

meeting, and indicating the industry planned to develop recommendations that auto

companies could take to enhance crash compatibility.

35

Ten months later, on December 2, 2003, we delivered to NHTSA a multi-phase

plan for enhancing the crash compatibility of passenger cars and light trucks. This

plan was developed by an international group of safety experts. At the same time,

we also delivered to NHTSA a commitment made on behalf of the world’s automakers to begin to design cars and trucks according to the performance criteria

specified in the group of experts’ plan. This commitment will lead to significant improvements in the protection afforded to occupants in crashes. It is the most comprehensive voluntary safety initiative ever undertaken by automakers.

For the North American market, front-to-side crashes, where the striking vehicle

is a light truck or SUV, represent a significant compatibility challenge. We are placing a high priority on enhancing the protection of occupants inside vehicles struck

in the side by, among other things, enhancing head protection of occupants in struck

vehicles. We expect our efforts to lead to effective counter-measures that auto manufacturers can incorporate in their vehicles. We are working on efforts intended to

aid in the development of evaluation criteria that will be established to drive improvements in car side structures to reduce side impact intrusion and provide for

additional absorption of crash energy.

With regard to front-to-front crashes, our initial plan focuses on specific recommendations to enhance alignment of front-end energy absorbing structures of vehicles. Manufacturers have been working to improve this architectural feature by

modifying truck frames. The voluntary standard will govern structural alignment

for the entire light-duty vehicle fleet and provide for an industry wide initiative. In

addition, we are developing test procedures that could lead to more comprehensive

approaches to measuring and controlling these crash forces. These efforts to develop

voluntary standards for crash compatibility, when combined with an industry commitment to design vehicles in accordance with them, is a model for voluntary industry action. These programs have proven to be very effective in bringing significant

safety improvements into the fleet faster than has been historically possible through

regulation. The voluntary standards process also has the flexibility to produce rapid

modifications should the need arise.

The best way to illustrate the benefits for such an approach is to examine the development of the Recommended Procedures for Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk

From Deploying Side Airbags finalized in August 2000. In response to concerns

about potential injury risk to out-of-position (OOP) women and children from deploying side airbags, the Alliance, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and IIHS

used a joint working group to develop test procedures with injury criteria and limits

to ensure that the risk of injury to OOP occupants from deploying side airbags

would be very limited.

After an intensive effort, the working group developed a draft set of test procedures. This draft was presented in a public meeting on June 22, 2000. Comments

were collected and the finalized procedures were presented to NHTSA on August 8,

2000. Now, in model year 2005, 90 percent of side airbags have been designed in

accordance with the August 8, 2000 Recommended Procedures. More importantly,

the field performance of side air bags remains positive. These procedures and public

commitment were also used by Transport Canada as the basis for a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) between automobile manufacturers and the Canadian government.

Another Alliance initiative is assessing opportunities, to further reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover. Rollovers represent a significant safety challenge that warrants attention and action. Alliance efforts to reduce the frequency

and consequences of rollover involve passenger cars as well as SUVs, vans, and

pickup trucks. Our efforts include developing a handling test procedure or recommended practice that will focus on an assessment of the performance of electronic

stability control systems and other advanced handling enhancement devices. A typical rollover is one in which the driver becomes inattentive or distracted, loses control of the vehicle, and then strikes something that trips the vehicle, causing it to

roll. Electronic stability control systems are designed to help drivers to keep out of

trouble in the first place. However, should a rollover occur, the Alliance is assessing

opportunities to enhance rollover occupant protection, to determine the feasibility of

developing test procedures to assess the performance of countermeasures designed

to further reduce the risk of occupant ejection in rollover crashes, given the large

numbers of occupants ejected in such events. Of course the most effective, simplest

and least expensive means of reducing ejection is for occupants to wear safety belts.

Safety belts are 75-80 percent effective in reducing ejections.

The most effective voluntary improvement in decades is electronic stability control. Electronic stability control (ESC) uses sensors to detect if a driver is about to

lose control, and microprocessors automatically apply individual brakes and/or reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
36

duce engine power. Today, 51 percent of 2005 models are available with ESC, up

11 percentage points from 2004, and up 44 percentage points from 2003. According

to a NHTSA analysis, ESC showed a reduction in fatal rollover crashes of 63 percent in SUVs and 30 percent in cars. A similar analysis by IIHS also showed significant benefits—a 56 percent reduction in single vehicle fatal crashes and a 41 percent reduction in all single vehicle crashes. Stability controls, developed and installed voluntarily by industry, is highly effective in reducing crashes, especially

those related to loss of control and subsequent rollover. See Attachment 4.

Alliance members are also individually pursuing initiatives to enhance motor vehicle safety. One such initiative that has received widespread support is the installation of vehicle-based technologies to encourage safety belt usage. Preliminary research on a system deployed in the United States by one Alliance member found

a statistically significant 5 percentage point increase in safety belt use for drivers

of vehicles equipped with that system compared with drivers of unequipped vehicles.

NHTSA estimates that a single percentage point increase in safety belt use nationwide would result in an estimated 250 lives saved per year. Beginning in model year

2004, all members of the Alliance began deploying various vehicle-based technologies to increase safety belt use. The rollout of these technologies will continue

over the next few model years.

COMPREHENSIVE AND CURRENT DATA ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE INSIGHTFUL AND

SOUND PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS

NHTSA’s two key traffic crash database programs, the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) provide

crucial information to safety planners and vehicle design engineers. The NASS program, in particular, has been chronically under-funded. On October 17, 2002, the

Alliance and various other safety groups sent a letter to NHTSA Administrator Dr.

Jeffrey Runge outlining the importance of sound crash and injury data. The Alliance

emphasized the need for additional funds for NASS in order to evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures. See Attachment 5.

The Administration has proposed substantial funding to upgrade state traffic

records systems. Improved state record systems can help improve the quality of

FARS data and assist states in establishing safety program priorities. The Alliance

strongly supports upgrading state and federal crash data systems and urges Congress to provide appropriate levels of funding for them. The Alliance believes this

funding is critical because NHTSA rulemakings must be data-driven, supported by

scientifically sound evidence, and demonstrate the potential for cost-effective safety

benefits without undesired side effects. We must ensure that our safety investments,

from both government and industry are achieving the largest benefits possible.

The Alliance also sponsors a significant amount of safety research that is shared

with the safety community. The Alliance is sponsoring a program to collect realworld crash data on the performance of depowered and advanced air bags at three

sites around the U.S. (Dade County, Florida, Dallas County, Texas, and Chilton,

Coosa, St. Clair, Talledega, and Shelby Counties in Alabama). This program adds

valuable information about air bag performance to the extensive crash data already

being collected by NHTSA through NASS. The Alliance is committed to funding this

program that will run through this year. The current Alliance commitment for the

advanced air bag research is $4.5 million over 4 years. The Alliance project will observe all the NASS data collection protocols so that the Alliance funded cases can

be compared with, and evaluated consistently with, other cases in the NASS

dataset.

Consistent with the need for more real world data, Alliance members have voluntarily installed Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in their vehicles. EDRs provide improved data to assist safety researchers, auto engineers, government researchers

and trauma doctors in their work. EDRs can improve our collective understanding

of crash events and lead to improvements in vehicle safety systems. Recording certain data elements in the moments just prior to and during a crash can contribute

to the breadth and reliability of the crash data already gathered by state and federal governments and widely used by public and private entities to study and improve transportation safety. NHTSA and NTSB have noted the important safety

benefits of EDRs. See Attachment 6.

During the 2005 state legislative session, 15 states have introduced bills on EDRs.

These bills either mandate EDRs be in vehicles, require on/off switches, or control

the use of EDRs due to privacy concerns. In 2004, NHTSA proposed a rulemaking

for EDRs and a final rule is anticipated by the end of this year. The Alliance believes there is a need for a uniform national policy on EDRs.

37

HIGHWAY AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PROVISIONS IN THE SENATE BILL

In addition to adequate funding for NASS, the Alliance believes it important for

NHTSA to have the resources necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of crash

causation similar to the multi year ‘‘Indiana Tri-Level Study’’ that was completed

25 years ago. Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington’s Institute for Research in Public Safety conducted the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents from 1972 through 1977. According to NHTSA officials, the Indiana Tri-Level

Study has been the only study in the last 30 years to collect in-depth, on-scene crash

causation data. NHTSA relies on it today because other NHTSA data is collected

from police crash reports or collected days or weeks after the crash, making it difficult to obtain causation data. Significant advancements in vehicle safety technology and design have occurred since then, making this study obsolete as a basis

for regulatory decisions.

Therefore, the Alliance strongly supported the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s FY 2006 budget request for $10 million, so that NHTSA can effectively update their crash causation data. An updated study would help guide and

enlighten public policy aimed at reducing the frequency of traffic crashes, injuries,

and fatalities. This is a crucial step toward improving the quality of data available

to inform sound regulatory decision-making at NHTSA.

The Alliance supports the nontraffic incident data collection provisions in the Senate bill (Section 7255). Currently, there is little real world data on the magnitude,

contributing causes, and circumstances of off-road events such as back over accidents or children being left unattended in vehicles. If safety resources are to be able

to get ‘‘the most bang for the buck’’ then we first need to understand the problems

to ensure that any technological solutions are both effective and an efficient use of

limited resources.

The provision in the Senate bill (Section 7257) on Automobile Information Disclosure requires vehicle window labels include information about safety ratings assigned and formally published or released by NHTSA as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The Alliance supports meaningful consumer information

and will work through the rulemaking process to encourage a satisfactory outcome.

THE NHTSA MANDATED RULEMAKINGS IN THE SENATE PASSED HIGHWAY BILL PREJUDGE

THE RULEMAKING PROCESS

The NHTSA reauthorization provisions in the Senate passed bill would mandate

a number of major motor vehicle safety rulemakings. Some of these rulemakings are

already in process at NHTSA and consistent with their current safety priorities. As

a matter of policy, however, while, we support and participate in the rulemaking

process, however, as a matter of policy, we believe that any final rule, if appropriate,

should be based on sound data, public comment, an examination of alternatives,

consideration of economic consequences and provide appropriate lead-time. By requiring that rules must be published, regardless of the public rulemaking record on

that subject, the Senate bill’s approach prejudges the outcome of the rulemaking

process and deprives NHTSA it’s authority to make safety related assessments and

determinations of rulemaking priorities. Thus, we cannot support any mandate requiring that final rules must be issued, regardless of information provided to the

agency through its public notice and comment process. There is no need for the Congress to order NHTSA to both short-circuit its own governing legislation regarding

the criteria for establishing rules as well as the requirements in the Administrative

Procedures Act regarding responding to public comments.

The complexity of safety rulemakings requires that careful attention be accorded

to the inherent tradeoffs associated with regulations. In the past, we have seen

tradeoffs among adult high-speed protection in frontal crashes and associated harm

to children and others in low-speed crashes. The March 6, 2004 IIHS Status Report,

notes that the 1997 rule issued by NHTSA that allowed manufacturers to produce

‘‘depowered’’ air bags was the right decision then and still is now. In designing occupant restraint systems, manufacturers must carefully balance high-speed and lowerspeed protection, protection for belted vs. unbelted occupants, and protection for

large adults and smaller adults and children. All involve safety tradeoffs.

Another tradeoff acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences, and others,

have pointed out the significant increase in highway casualties that resulted from

the downsizing and downweighting of vehicles in the late 1970s and early 1980s as

a result of the need to rapidly increase fuel economy. Further, the rulemakings in

the Senate bill require NHTSA to make additional tradeoffs for example, (1) whether stronger roofs might result in a higher rate of rollover because of added structure

to the top of the vehicle, thereby raising its center of gravity and increasing rollover

risk and (2) whether window treatments to reduce ejections for unbelted occupants

38

could lead to increased head and neck injuries to belted occupants. These safety

tradeoffs are not hypothetical situations or reasons not to act. Instead, they are real

complex issues that need to be addressed by experts. The ‘‘expert’’ agency established by the Congress to address these issues—NHTSA—should make regulatory

decisions based on a sound public record, and not based on arbitrary deadlines.

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES CAN NOT BE FULLY REALIZED UNTIL VEHICLE OCCUPANTS ARE PROPERLY RESTRAINED AND IMPAIRED DRIVERS ARE OFF THE ROAD

Motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility among government, consumers and

vehicle manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are more committed than ever to developing advanced safety technologies to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from

motor vehicle crashes. But as a nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained

and impaired drivers off the road.

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. O’Neill.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN O’NEILL

Mr. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Brian O’Neill. I am President of the Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety, which is a nonprofit research and

communications organization that identifies ways to reduce motor

vehicle crash injuries, deaths, and property damage. I am here

today to discuss various approaches to improving vehicle safety.

If we look at the history, there have been three periods of vehicle

safety improvement. From the beginning of motorization into the

1960’s, safety improvements were voluntary and limited. Crash

protection features were rarely considered by the industry.

The second phase began in the 1960’s, as government regulations

started to require manufacturers to meet a comprehensive set of

performance standards. Many of these standards for the first time

addressed crash protection. Auto manufacturers did not welcome

this regulation, but they accepted it as the only way many safety

features would be adopted. Manufacturers of that time believed

safety could not be sold, and safety advocates were convinced that

Federal regulation was the only way to force automakers to develop

new crash protection technologies such as airbags.

The third phase of safety improvements began with NHTSA’s initiation of the New Car Assessment Program, under which vehicle

crash tests are conducted with instrumented dummies to provide

consumers with comparative safety information by make and

model. Not long after this program was launched in the late 1970’s

and early 1980’s, automakers began advertising their NCAP crash

test results. They also began advertising availability of airbags.

This marked an end to what has been almost—what had been the

almost universal view that safety could not be sold.

Today, an abundance of independent information helps consumers factor safety into their vehicle purchase decisions. NHTSA’s

NCAP rates front, side crash protection and rollover propensity. We

at the Institute rate vehicles’ front, side, and rear crash protection.

Manufacturers recognizing the power of this consumer information

have responded by improving the safety performance of many of

their vehicles. Examples are the improvements in frontal crash protection, especially the designs of vehicle safety cages and front-end

crumple zones, that have been made in response to the Institute’s

program of offset crash tests. When various vehicle groups were

first tested by the Institute, relatively few models earned good ratings, and many were rated by us as marginal or poor performers.

In contrast, virtually all new passenger vehicles sold today now

have good ratings in these tests. A few are acceptable, and a handful of older designs are still rated marginal, but not one single design in the marketplace today is rated as poor.

Similar improvements are being made in response to the Institute’s more recently initiated side impact crashworthiness program.

In April 2004, we released the first side impact ratings for 13

midsize cars. Among these, only two earned good ratings, one was

acceptable, and the other 10 were rated poor. Following a second

round of midsize tests earlier this year, just 1 year after the first

tests, we now have nine midsize cars rated as good, four acceptVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
50

able, four marginal, and seven poor, and more improvements are

on the way.

Auto manufacturers are responding to these programs because

they recognize the power of the safety marketplace. There is no debate about whether safety sells cars any more. It does, and the

manufacturers and their suppliers are voluntarily developing and

installing new safety technologies. An example is side airbags that

protect occupants’ heads. This technology, which reduces driver fatality risk in side impacts by about 45 percent, was developed without regulation or even the threat of it, and now, they are well on

their way to becoming standard equipment.

But there does continue to be an important place for Federal

rulemaking to establish minimum safety levels for all new vehicles.

One question that has been before this committee is who should establish NHTSA’s rulemaking priorities. Should it be Congress, or

should the agency set its own priorities? Ideally, NHTSA should

have both the commitment and the technical expertise to set priorities and complete the rulemaking process by issuing standards.

But history has been mixed in this regard. Few NHTSA Administrators have been knowledgeable about highway safety when they

were appointed, so lags to accommodate learning frequently have

slowed the agency’s progress. Plus, the political leadership sometimes has been ideologically opposed to rulemaking.

I believe that NHTSA’s present Administrator, Jeff Runge, is

competent, knowledgeable, and committed. Therefore, I believe detailed Congressional dictates for new rulemaking are not needed

this time. Any Congressional mandates that may be issued should

be broad rather than specific. The goal should be to facilitate safety

outcomes rather than to try to tell NHTSA in detail how to achieve

those outcomes.

Today, automakers and their suppliers are developing a wide

range of new technologies, including many features designed to

prevent crashes, and in some cases, these are already being marketed. We have already heard today about electronic stability control, which the Institute and NHTSA studies show to be very effective in preventing single vehicle crashes. But other technologies beginning to be deployed and under development include lane departure warning systems, blind spot detection, night vision enhancement, adaptive cruise control with stop/go braking, run-flat tires.

Still more features, such as brake boost assist, may prevent some

crashes, and reduce the severity of others. Systems are also being

developed to activate crash protection features before impacts

begin.

Because of the slow pace of rulemaking, NHTSA can play only

a limited role, as far as regulations are concerned, in getting this

kind of technology in new cars. These new innovations pose challenges for NHTSA and the rest of the safety community. We do not

have the equivalence of crash tests with instrumented dummies to

assess the performance of these new technologies. In most cases,

crash data bases do not provide sufficient and reliable information

to assess the potential benefits that can be expected. We simply do

not know how many crashes occur when drivers drift out of their

travel lanes, for example. We do not know the extent to which suddenly deflating tires contribute to crashes, nor do we know how

51

drivers might respond to the various new technologies. The absence

of reliable data about crash causation limits our ability to predict

the potential benefits of many of these new technologies. NHTSA,

the auto industry, its suppliers, and the safety community need to

work together to develop better data and new methods to assess

such technologies, so the most effective ones can be promoted.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. O’Neill, I need you to sum up.

Mr. O’NEILL. I will, sir.

Today, vehicle safety is being improved through regulation, consumer information, and voluntary standards. This mix means that

important safety improvements will be achieved much faster than

when we relied solely on the slow and deliberative regulatory process. We must recognize today that we have options in addition to

Federal regulations to achieve vehicle safety improvements.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Brian O’Neill follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN O’NEILL, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR

HIGHWAY SAFETY

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization that identifies ways to reduce motor vehicle crash deaths, injuries, and property damage. I am the Institute’s president, and I am here to discuss

various approaches to improving vehicle safety.

For a long time the belief was widespread that vehicle safety could not be sold.

The only way to promote safety improvements was federal regulation. This view no

longer prevails. Crash test programs conducted by the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety supply

consumers with abundant information to help them factor safety into their vehicle

purchase decisions. Manufacturers advertise safety because it is such an important

factor in the marketplace. The manufacturers and their suppliers are not only responding to various consumer crash test programs but also developing new technologies to secure a competitive edge. These innovations are outpacing the deliberative federal rulemaking process.

Many of the new technologies are intended to prevent crashes. These pose a challenge for NHTSA and the larger safety community to develop better data and new

methods to assess the potential benefits so the most effective technologies can be

promoted.

History of vehicle safety improvements

There have been three periods of improvement. From the beginning of motorization into the 1960s, the improvements were voluntary and limited. Manufacturers

improved crash avoidance features including brakes, lights, etc., but crash protection features rarely were considered.

The second phase of safety improvement began in the 1960s, as government regulations began requiring manufacturers to meet a comprehensive set of performance

standards. Many of these standards addressed crash protection. Auto manufacturers

did not welcome this regulation, but they accepted it as the only way many safety

features would be adopted. The manufacturers believed safety could not be sold, and

safety advocates were convinced that federal regulation was the only way to force

automakers to develop new crash protection technologies such as airbags.

The third phase of safety improvement began with NHTSA’s initiation of the New

Car Assessment Program (NCAP), under which vehicle crash tests are conducted

with instrumented dummies to provide consumers with comparative safety information by make and model. Not long after this program was launched in the late 1970s

and early 1980s, some automakers began advertising airbags and, later, their vehicles’ NCAP crash test results. This marked an end to what had been the almost universal view that safety could not be sold.

Today an abundance of information helps consumers factor safety into their vehicle purchase decisions. NHTSA’s NCAP rates front and side crash protection and

rollover propensity. We at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rate vehicles’

front, side, and rear crash protection. Manufacturers recognize the power of this

consumer information, and they have responded by dramatically improving the safety performance of their vehicles. Examples are the improvements in frontal crash

52

protection, especially the designs of vehicle safety cages and front-end crumple

zones, that have been made in response to the Institute’s program of offset crash

tests. When the various vehicle groups first were tested, relatively few models

earned good ratings. Many were marginal or poor. In contrast, virtually all passenger vehicles now earn good ratings in frontal offset crash tests. A few are acceptable, and a handful of older designs still are rated marginal. None is poor.

Tests of three Saab models illustrate this progress. The 1995 Saab 900’s frontend structural design was very poor. It allowed major collapse of the occupant compartment in the offset test. The structure of the 1999 Saab 9-3 was somewhat improved, mainly in the foot region. There was less structural collapse. The 2003 9-

3 was improved even more, so that this model now has excellent structural design.

Similar improvements are being made in response to the Institute’s more recently

initiated side impact crashworthiness program. In April 2004 we released the first

side impact ratings for 13 midsize cars. Among these only 2 earned good ratings,

1 was acceptable, and the other 10 were rated poor. Following a second round of

tests of midsize cars earlier this year, there now are 9 rated good, 4 acceptable, 4

marginal, and 7 poor.

Auto manufacturers are responding to these crashworthiness evaluation programs

because they recognize the power of the safety marketplace. There is no debate

about whether safety sells cars—it does—and the manufacturers and their suppliers

are voluntarily developing and installing new safety technologies. An example is

side airbags that protect occupants’ heads. This technology, which reduces driver fatality risk in side impacts by about 45 percent, was developed without regulation

or even the threat of it.

Side impact airbags initially were introduced in more expensive passenger vehicle

models. Now they are well on the way to becoming standard equipment, in part because of the Institute’s crashworthiness evaluations and in part because automakers

are addressing the issue of the harm that SUVs and pickups inflict on car occupants, especially in side crashes.

As powerful as the safety marketplace is, it cannot fully address issues such as

the harm that light trucks pose to car occupants. In February 2003 NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge challenged automakers to address this issue. The response

is an effort, led by the Institute and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, to develop voluntary standards to reduce the risks. To begin the process, experts from

around the world presented the latest research on crash compatibility at a technical

meeting convened in Washington, D.C. Then two groups of engineers and other

technical experts from car companies and safety organizations began meeting weekly, one group addressing incompatibility in front-to-side impacts and the other addressing front-to-front crashes. Within months the working groups completed the

first phase of their work, and all of the major automakers agreed to adopt the performance and design requirements developed by the two groups.

The requirements addressing front-to-side crashes will improve occupant head

protection in such collisions. In effect, auto manufacturers have agreed that by September 2009 they will equip all of their new vehicles with side impact airbags that

protect occupants’ heads. To address incompatibility in front-to-front crashes, automakers agreed that by September 2009 all of their new pickups and SUVs will have

front-end energy-absorbing structures that overlap the federally mandated bumper

zone for cars. This is a necessary first step toward reducing the chances of override

and underride, thus enhancing the ability of the front ends of both vehicles to absorb crash energy and keep damage away from the occupant compartments. In effect, this particular agreement sets geometric design restrictions for the front ends

of SUVs and pickups—something that would be harder and more complicated to

achieve through the NHTSA rulemaking process because federal motor vehicle safety standards must specify performance, not design, requirements.

This is not the end of the collaborative effort. In fact, it is more like the beginning. The current research phase is expected to lead to additional performance requirements addressing front-to-front crash compatibility. A series of barrier and vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests will be conducted to develop procedures to measure the

distribution of crash forces across the front ends of vehicles. This should lead, in

turn, to requirements that will match front-end forces in head-on crashes between

cars and light trucks. Similarly, research planned for side impacts is expected to

lead to performance criteria for body regions in addition to the head as well as evaluations of advanced dummies for use in side impact testing.

It should not be assumed that achieving these kinds of voluntary standards is an

easy process. Virtually every major automaker participated in the compatibility

meetings, and there were frequent disagreements. Exchanges sometimes became

contentious as we negotiated our way through the collaborative process. To achieve

53

consensus we met frequently, conducted teleconferences, debated myriad options,

and revisited thorny issues again and again.

We at the Institute signed on to this process knowing our credibility would be at

stake if the outcomes of the collaboration turned out to be standards reflecting the

lowest common denominators. So we were committed to making sure the process led

to important safety improvements. I believe such improvements will happen, especially as the research phases of this initiative progress and we develop new knowledge about countermeasures to reduce crash incompatibilities.

Establishing rulemaking priorities

Although today we can address some vehicle safety issues on a voluntary basis,

there continues to be an important place for federal rulemaking to establish minimum safety levels for all new vehicles. A question is, who should establish

NHTSA’s rulemaking priorities? Should it be Congress, or should the agency set its

own priorities? Ideally NHTSA should have both the commitment and the technical

expertise to set priorities and complete the rulemaking process by issuing standards. But history is mixed in this regard. Few NHTSA administrators have been

knowledgeable about highway safety when they were appointed, so lags to accommodate learning frequently have slowed the agency’s progress. Plus the political leadership sometimes has been ideologically opposed to rulemaking, which has further

slowed progress toward vehicle safety improvements.

A good example involves the side impact protection rule. Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214, first issued in 1970, was an adaptation of internal

General Motors requirements for beams in car doors to resist intrusion. Somewhat

later NHTSA conducted extensive research aimed at upgrading the standard to include crash testing with instrumented dummies. This research increased knowledge

about vehicle performance in side impacts, but largely for political reasons NHTSA

was not pursuing many new rules during the 1980s. Upgrading side impact requirements was put on hold. In November 1989 the newly appointed administrator, Jerry

Curry, responded to what was by then strong political pressure to move forward

with an upgrade, and he committed to do so early in his tenure. An upgraded rule

was issued within a year of his arrival at NHTSA. Because of continuing technical

controversy about the adequacy of the new side impact test dummy, Curry acknowledged when he issued the rule in October 1990 that it was not perfect. But adding

that waiting for a perfect rule would only delay the timely establishment of a good

rule, he said he expected the agency to pursue further upgrades as new research

became available.

NHTSA recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to further upgrade

FMVSS 214 by adding crash tests and test dummies. The new standard will, in effect, require head protection. In the meantime, the Institute’s side impact crashworthiness program and the voluntary agreement on front-to-side compatibility already are accelerating the installation of side airbags that protect people’s heads.

By the time any FMVSS 214 revisions can take effect, virtually all cars already will

meet the new requirements. So in this case marketplace demands and voluntary

standards will have superceded agency action.

As this example indicates, the rulemaking process has not always proceeded as

expeditiously as it should. Sometimes this is because the agency’s leadership has

failed or because Congress has changed the agency’s own priorities. I believe

NHTSA’s present administrator, Jeff Runge, is competent, knowledgeable, and committed. Therefore, I believe detailed Congressional dictates for new rulemaking are

not needed at this time. Any Congressional mandates that may be issued should be

broad rather than specific. The goal should be to facilitate safety outcomes rather

than to tell NHTSA how to achieve those outcomes. And in all cases Congress

should ensure that what it legislates NHTSA to undertake is feasible and based on

sound science and adequate data.

Challenge of new safety technologies

Automakers and their suppliers are developing a wide range of new technologies,

including many features designed to prevent crashes, and in some cases these already are being marketed. An example is electronic stability control, which NHTSA

and Institute studies show to be effective in preventing single-vehicle crashes. Other

examples include lane departure warning systems, blind spot detection, night vision

enhancement, adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go braking, and run-flat tires.

Still more features such as brake boost assist may prevent some crashes and reduce

the severity of others. Systems also are being developed to activate crash protection

features before impacts begin.

These innovations pose challenges for NHTSA and the rest of the safety community. We do not have the equivalents of crash tests with instrumented dummies to

54

assess the performance of the new technologies. In most cases crash databases do

not provide sufficient and reliable information to assess the potential benefits that

can be expected. We simply do not know how many crashes occur when drivers drift

out of their travel lanes, for example. We do not know the extent to which suddenly

deflating tires contribute to crashes. Nor do we know how drivers might respond to

the various new technologies. The absence of reliable data about crash causation

limits our ability to predict potential benefits of many of these new technologies.

NHTSA, the auto industry, its suppliers, and the safety community need to work

together to develop better data and new methods to assess such technologies so the

most effective ones can be promoted.

Conclusion: a range of complementary approaches

Today vehicle safety is being improved through regulation, consumer information,

and voluntary standards. This mix should mean that important safety improvements will be achieved much faster than when we relied solely on the slow and deliberative regulatory process. Federal standards set minimum levels of safety, but

in some areas the manufacturers are designing vehicles substantially beyond these

minimums to earn good ratings in consumer crash test programs. New safety technologies are being developed. But not every vehicle safety issue can be addressed

in the marketplace. For example, it is hard to imagine consumers demanding vehicles that are less aggressive, or harmful, to people in other vehicles. So alternatives

are needed. One such approach is for automakers to collaborate on voluntary safety

standards. The main reason the Institute has signed on to collaborative approaches

is that sometimes they can offer a faster track toward improvements than federal

rulemaking would allow.

Voluntary approaches do not replace rulemaking, which is and will continue to

be an important NHTSA function. While the agency need not address every issue

with a standard, it should have in place a long-term program to review and upgrade—or in some cases to eliminate—its standards. If the agency adheres to such

a course, there should be no need for Congressional dictates on rulemaking.

What is important to recognize is the range of options available today to achieve

vehicle safety improvements. The wisest course is to proceed on a case-by-case basis,

making full use of the most advantageous approach in any given situation.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Pikrallidas, welcome.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN PIKRALLIDAS

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Susan

Pikrallidas, and I am Vice President of Public Affairs for AAA.

The focus of this hearing is—has been on NHTSA’s safety—the—

I am sorry, the safety provisions in the transportation reauthorization bill. However, AAA was specifically requested to provide information to the committee on a consumer protection issue in the bill,

and that is what I will be addressing my remarks to. I am referring

to the requirement in Section 7260 that the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with NHTSA, revise the process used

to determine fuel economy estimates for vehicle labeling purposes

to reflect the actual mileage vehicles achieve under real world conditions.

The summer driving season is upon us. Next week, AAA will release its travel projections for the July 4 holiday weekend, and we

expect Americans will be traveling in record numbers. Nevertheless, gasoline prices remain high, as we discussed earlier today,

and with the cost of gasoline well over $2 a gallon, the family travel budget is going to feel a pinch.

AAA members have asked us what they can do to conserve fuel.

We provide a number of driving tips, vehicle maintenance suggestions, and other information to help them save money and conserve

fuel. One suggestion relates to purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately, new car buyers wishing to factor fuel economy

into their purchasing decisions are short-changed by the informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
55

tion they see on the window sticker. In too many case, they experience a different kind of sticker shock when they take their new car

on the road.

Truth in advertising is what the Senate provision seeks to

achieve, nothing more. AAA views this provision as a simple,

straightforward directive to the Federal agency charged with administering test procedures that produce mileage ratings consumers see on the window stickers of their new cars. By EPA’s own

admission, existing procedures are outdated, and Agency officials

agree that test procedures must be revised. Section 7260 of the

Senate-passed transportation bill provides Congressional direction,

so that EPA will do what it has said it should do, and that is to

update their existing test procedures.

Why do we need this change? Mr. Chairman, consumers are misled when they read these mileage ratings on window stickers. They

have every right to believe that the ratings produced by a federally

mandated test accurately reflect what they will see once they drive

the vehicle off the lot. Real world experience often produces a different reality than a laboratory test. EPA’s fuel economy tests are

30 years old, and are out of step with current driving habits and

traffic patterns. They do not take into account higher speed limits

or the effects of driving on congested roads. Tests are run with the

air conditioning system off, even though virtually every vehicle

comes with air conditioning, and most drivers use it.

Mr. Chairman, experts from the Energy Information Administration have said EPA’s current methods ‘‘may be inappropriate for

evaluating vehicles used today,’’ and the National Academy of

Sciences’ National Resource Council says ‘‘most drivers experience

lower fuel economy than suggested by EPA’s results.’’ But the most

persuasive evidence comes from consumers themselves, who are

frustrated when the mileage they actually see is less than what

they were led to believe when they bought their vehicles.

Over the last several months, considerable work has been done

to craft a compromise provision that achieves objectives everyone

supports without the additional costs of creating new tests. When

this issue was raised on the House floor during debate on the energy bill, it was the concern that new tests would need to be created that derailed an amendment and the intent of what consumers were trying to achieve. Since then, AAA, along with other

stakeholder groups, worked with majority and minority staffs in

the Senate and reached agreement on the language that is now

found in Section 7260 of the Senate transportation bill.

Truth in advertising can be achieved by utilizing existing EPA

tests that are used for other purposes such as emissions testing.

We believe that allowing EPA to use a combination of these existing tests, rather than the outmoded fuel economy labeling test, will

achieve the desired results. EPA is not required to develop a completely new test. The language in the bill makes clear that EPA

will be given the flexibility to ‘‘update and revise the process used

to determine fuel economy for labeling purposes only,’’ and can be

adjusted for factors such as speed limits, acceleration rates, braking, variations in weather and temperature, vehicle load, use of A/

C, driving patterns, and use of other fuel consuming factors.

56

Mr. Chairman, this approach was carefully crafted to meet the

concerns of all parties, consumers and manufacturers. It is a winwin solution that will lead to consumers getting what they deserve,

accurate information on which to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have only one last hurdle to cross. That is a decision on the

part of House conferees to accept the Senate language in the transportation bill. A positive signal of support from this subcommittee

will send the right signal to conferees and their consumer constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Susan Pikrallidas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN PIKRALLIDAS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

AAA

Mr. Chairman: my name is Susan Pikrallidas, and I am the Vice President of

Public Affairs for AAA. On behalf of our association, thank you for the opportunity

to discuss one small, but important provision in the Senate version of the transportation reauthorization bill. I am referring to the requirement in Section 7260 that

the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, revise the process used to determine fuel economy estimates for vehicle labeling purposes to reflect the actual mileage vehicles achieve

under ‘‘real world conditions.’’

The summer driving season is upon us. Next week AAA will release its travel projections for the July 4th holiday weekend, and we expect that Americans will be

traveling in record numbers. Nevertheless, gasoline prices remain high. With the

cost of gasoline well over $2.00 a gallon, the family travel budget is going to feel

a pinch.

AAA members have asked what they can do to conserve fuel during periods of

high gas prices. We provide a number of driving tips, vehicle maintenance suggestions, and other information to help them save money and conserve fuel. One suggestion relates to purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately, new car

buyers wishing to factor fuel economy into their purchasing decisions are shortchanged by the information they see on the window sticker. In too many cases, they

experience a different kind of sticker shock when they take their new car on the

road.

‘‘Truth-in-advertising’’ is what the Senate provision seeks to achieve—nothing

more! AAA views this provision as a simple, straight-forward directive to the federal

agency charged with administering test procedures that produce the mileage ratings

consumers see on the window stickers of new vehicles. By EPA’s own admission, existing procedures are outdated, and agency officials agree that test procedures must

be revised. Section 7260 of the Senate-passed transportation bill provides Congressional direction so that EPA will do what it has said it should do, and that is update

their existing test procedures.

Why do we need this change? Mr. Chairman, consumers are mislead when they

read these mileage ratings on window stickers. They have every right to believe that

ratings produced by a federally mandated test accurately reflect what they will see

once they drive the vehicle off the lot. Real-world experience often produces a different reality than a laboratory test. EPA’s fuel economy tests are 30 years old and

are out of step with current driving habits and traffic patterns. They do not take

into account higher speed limits or the effects of driving on congested roads. Tests

are run with the air conditioning system off, even though virtually every car comes

with A/C and most drivers use it.

Mr. Chairman: experts from the Energy Information Administration have said

EPA’s current methods ‘‘may be inappropriate for evaluating vehicles used today’’

and the National Academy of Sciences’ National Resource Council says ‘‘most drivers experience lower fuel economy than suggested by EPA’s results.’’ But, the most

persuasive evidence comes from consumers themselves who are frustrated when the

mileage they actually see is less than what they were led to believe when they

bought their vehicles.

Over the last several months, considerable work has been done to craft a compromise provision that achieves objectives that everyone supports without the additional costs of creating new tests. When this issue was raised on the floor of the

House during debate on the energy bill, it was the concern that new tests would

57

need to be created that derailed an amendment and the intent of what consumers

were trying to achieve. Since then AAA, along with other stakeholder groups,

worked with Majority and Minority committee staff on the Senate side and reached

agreement on the language that is now found in Section 7260 of the Senate transportation bill.

Truth-in-advertising can be achieved by utilizing existing EPA tests that are used

for other purposes such as emissions testing. We believe that allowing EPA to use

a combination of these existing tests, rather than the out-moded fuel economy labeling test will achieve the desired results. EPA is not required to develop a completely

new test. The language in the bill makes clear that EPA will be given the flexibility

to ‘‘update and revise the process used to determine fuel economy values for labeling

purposes only’’, and can be adjusted for factors such as speed limits, acceleration

rates, braking, variations in weather and temperature, vehicle load, use of A/C, driving patterns, and use of other fuel consuming factors.

Mr. Chairman: this approach was carefully crafted to meet the concerns of all parties—consumers and manufacturers. It’s a win-win solution that will lead to consumers getting what they deserve: accurate information on which to make informed

purchasing decisions.

We have only one last hurdle to cross: that is a decision on the part of House conferees to accept the Senate language in the transportation bill. A positive signal of

support from this subcommittee will send the right signal to conferees and their

consumer constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentlelady. Ms. Fennell.

Ms. FENNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this on? Thank

you—is that on?

Mr. STEARNS. You don’t have it on. There you go. Just push that

button.

Ms. FENNELL. How is that?

Mr. STEARNS. That is good.

STATEMENT OF JANETTE E. FENNELL

Ms. FENNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, for

holding this hearing, and inviting me to speak on behalf of Kids

and Cars. I come here from a different perspective than the other

panel members, as a mom, and as a person who has lived through

a life-threatening situation where my family were kidnapped,

locked in the trunk of a car. All this happened when we didn’t

know what happened to our then 9 month old baby. So it is from

that perspective that I have learned about these situations.

Mr. STEARNS. Your 9 month old daughter was locked in the

trunk of the car?

Ms. FENNELL. No, my husband and I were locked in the trunk

of the car.

Mr. STEARNS. You were locked in the trunk of the car.

Ms. FENNELL. Right. And during that kidnapping episode, we

had no idea what our abductors had done then, during——

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Ms. FENNELL. [continuing] with our baby.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Ms. FENNELL. But I am here today as a testament that we did

survive, and it is because my family was so blessed that I have

dedicated my entire life to try to make cars safer for people, but

in particular, children.

Kids and Cars is a nonprofit organization, and we have tried to

bring light to this issue of non-traffic, non-crash incidents. We collect data about children less than 14, but predominantly, what we

58

find, are these incidents are happening to children five and younger.

Dr. Runge spoke earlier about a situation where this data would

not be easily assessed, and I am here to tell you that this information is available. When a child dies in the United States of America, a police report is written. What is the difference right now is

that those reports, because the government has said they are not

looking at non-traffic, non-crash incidents, are shredded and go

away. The information is there. It is available through police reports, through child death review teams, and I would be more than

happy to be a consultant, and teach them how to collect these data.

These type of incidents also are in NHTSA’s jurisdiction, by their

own admission. So that is very important. We are only asking them

to do something that is already in their charter. The first thing I

would like to do, because like I said, I am a mom, and I am very

concerned about this, is talk about from the perspective of a child,

just a little book we have put together, and the title of it is ‘‘Making Funny Pictures in the Driveway.’’ It is a one page book. ‘‘Sally

draws a funny face. Daddy begins to back up the car. Sally doesn’t

see Daddy. Daddy doesn’t see Sally. The end.’’ Sometimes, stories

about kids and cars end badly. In the U.S., more than one—more

than two children are backed over and killed every week in a driveway or parking lot. The CDC tells us that over 48 children are

treated in emergency rooms every week, because they have been

backed over by a vehicle. This is something we need immediate attention on. As I go home, and I turn on my computer and answer

my phone, I will be dealing with two more families every week that

have lost a child, and what really puts this in perspective, in over

70 percent of those incidents, it is a family member behind the

wheel of the vehicle that kills that child.

The next provision has to do with not leaving children alone in

cars. We need to collect that data. They are being left behind, because they are out of sight, out of mind. We talk about power window strangulations, and Dr. Runge talks about a rule, but the rule

is not going to fix the problem. All they did was say that these dangerous rocker and toggle switches should be recessed. We need to

ban them, and we need auto-reverse. Children never have to die,

and it is not just children leaning out of windows. Other people activate power window switches, unbeknownst to the other person,

and can very severely injured children and adults.

The other situation we deal with is vehicles set into motion.

Again, we have another book for that, ‘‘Playing in Daddy’s Car is

Fun,’’ and it is a one page book, and it just says: ‘‘Little Bobby

presses many buttons. He pretends to drive. It is lots of fun. Then,

the car begins to roll down the hill. The end.’’ One would think that

the voluntary standard of a brake shift interlock, which means that

you have to have your foot on the brake before you can engage a

car into gear would have taken place many years, because car manufacturers did it voluntarily. But that is one of the problems with

a voluntary mandate, is not all cars have that. There are cars on

the lot, 2005 vehicles, that have no brake shift interlock. Unfortunately, I get the calls, I find the stories where little children knock

the car into gear, they become afraid, jump out, the car runs over

59

1Data Collection Study: Deaths and Injuries resulting from certain non-traffic and non-crash

events’ NHTSA (May 2004). 2 Injuries and Deaths Among Children Left Unattended in or Around Motor Vehicles—United

States, July 2000-June 2001, MMWR, 51(26); 570-572 (Jul. 5, 2002). Copy of study attached to

testimony.

them, and they are killed. We really urge the House to enact the

legislation, and address these safety issues.

There is also another bill, H.R. 2230, the Cameron Gulbransen

Kids and Cars Safety Act, that would improve the power windows,

that would help to remind people to bring infants with them. Our

cars already tell us if we have left our keys in the ignition. They

tell us if we have left our headlights on. What could be more important than leaving a little child behind? We need NHTSA to collect

that data, and we want regular collection of the data, so we can

really understand how large this problem is.

There was a voice earlier about the possibility of making this a

separate bill. I urge you, please don’t do this. We need these things

to move forward, and we need this to move forward just as soon

as possible. We understand human factors, but there are some

things that our vehicles can do through vehicle design to help prevent these very preventable tragedies that are happening to children in particular. We can’t wait any longer.

Kids and Cars urges the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to support enactment of the Senate motor vehicle

safety provisions included in H.R. 3, and quickly pass H.R. 2230,

the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Janette E. Fennell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANETTE E. FENNELL, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, KIDS

AND CARS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Janette Fennell and I am the founder and president

of KIDS AND CARS, an organization dedicated to improving the safety of children

in and around motor vehicles. I wish to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the House Committee

on Energy and Commerce for inviting me to appear before you today to testify on

the important issue of child safety. I come before you today because there are a

number of legislative measures that Congress can enact this summer that will save

the lives of thousands of people, especially children, each year. KIDS AND CARS

appreciates the opportunity to express our views on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children three years of

age and older, and children are often victims of non-traffic, non-crash incidents as

well. Children, especially young children, are unaware of the dangers that they can

encounter each day in and around motor vehicles, even vehicles that are not moving. While it is the responsibility of parents and other adults to protect our children,

many parents are themselves unaware of the risk presented by power windows or

the simple act of backing the family car out of the driveway. These type of incidents

are within NHTSA’s jurisdiction as the agency itself admits, ‘‘NHTSA is also responsible for motor vehicle safety when there is not a crash or the event occurs off the

public traffic way.’’ 1

KIDS AND CARS was founded in 1999 to address the often overlooked problem

of nontraffic, noncrash incidents and focuses on dangers encountered by children in

and around passenger vehicles. Children can be harmed when they are inside vehicles whether or not the engine is on and the vehicle is moving. We collect data involving children 14 years of age and younger, the majority of cases involve children

under the age of 5. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported

that over 9,100 children were treated in emergency rooms from July 2000 to June,

2001, due to nontraffic noncrash events.2 This is a weekly average of 176 injuries

per week, each and every week. Although some say that the issue of children being

injured and killed in and around motor vehicles is not a serious and significant safeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
60

3 Nonfatal Motor-Vehicle-Related Backover Injuries Among Children—United States, 2001—

2003, MMWR, 54(06); 144-146 (Feb. 18, 2005). Copy of study attached to testimony.

ty issue, the CDC report refutes this view. KIDS AND CARS has compiled a national database that is recognized as a source for fatality and injury information and

is thoroughly documented. We know that our database doesn’t capture all such incidents since we do not have the resources to conduct a census. As a result these incidents are vastly underreported to state, local and federal authorities. For over five

years, we have urged NHTSA to track on an annual basis child fatalities and injuries. Yet, the NHTSA does not include the reports of these kinds of child fatalities

or nonfatal serious injuries in federal traffic safety databases. It seems that we literally need an act of Congress to get NHTSA to begin tracking these incidents.

Power windows are one source of injury for children in motor vehicles. Children

can be injured or killed by power windows even when responsible adults are in the

vehicle. Last year alone, 8 children died after being strangled by power windows.

Another danger to children is heatstroke. Last year 35 children died from

hyperthermia after being left in hot cars, many times by caring, loving parents who

inadvertently left the child inside the car. From 1998 through 2004, at least 230

children have perished in this manner.

Children are also in jeopardy due to blind zones that are a result of poor vehicle

design. While all passenger vehicles have a blind zone to the rear of the vehicle,

the size of the zone increases dramatically in light trucks, especially sport utility

vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks. I have attached a chart from Consumer Reports

depicting the rear blind zones for a popular sedan, minivan, SUV and pickup truck.

According to our data at KIDS AND CARS, at least 101 children were backed over

and killed in 2004, at least 91 children were backed over and killed in 2003, and

at least 58 were killed in 2002. In addition a February 2005 report from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that for each of the years 2001

through 2003 an estimated 2,492 children per year were treated in emergency rooms

for nonfatal motor vehicle backover injuries-a total of 7,476 children over a three

year period injured in backover incidents.3 Our data indicates that at least 2 children are backed over and killed every week in the US. Furthermore, the CDC data

tell us that an additional 48 children are treated in emergency rooms after being

backed over each week. These data confirm that backover incidents are a regular

and all too frequent occurrence. The tragedy is that they are preventable.

If children were dying by the hundreds in airplane crashes or due to food poisoning this Congress would be racing to enact legislation to correct the problem.

Right now, the House of Representatives has two golden opportunities that would

improve the safety of children and save lives.

The Senate amendment of the House-passed federal-aid highway reauthorization

bill, H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), includes

a number of important child-friendly safety provisions. In the Senate version, Section 7254 provides for a study of technologies to prevent backover incidents in which

people, especially children, are run over because they are in the blind zone and the

driver was unable to see them when backing up. Currently there are no standards

whatsoever that regulate what a person should be able to see when backing their

vehicle. Section 7255 would have NHTSA collect non-traffic, noncrash incident data

at least biennially, a critical step if we are to understand the true size and scope

of this problem. In addition, Section 7258 of the Senate amendment would make

power window switches less prone to inadvertent use and thus reduce some, although not all, of the danger to children in vehicles with automatic power windows.

Since the House passed bill, H.R. 3, has no comparable provisions to protect the

safety of children on these issues, I strongly urge the members of the Committee

to support adoption of these Senate child safety provisions as part of the final bill.

The House also has the opportunity to build on the H.R. 3 provisions by moving

expeditiously to pass H.R. 2230, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act

of 2005, which addresses four critical safety issues for children. H.R. 2230 will: 1)

provide a more comprehensive improvement in power window protection for children

and adults; 2) remind drivers to remove infants when they leave the vehicle; 3) protect children, the disabled, and others by ensuring that drivers have good rearward

visibility and an unobstructed view behind their vehicle when backing up; and, 4)

ensure the regular collection of death and injury data in non-traffic, non-crash

events involving motor vehicles. The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses

these life saving measures. I have attached a copy of their letter of support to my

testimony. These reasonable measures should be adopted.

For many years, parents have been told to transport their children in the back

seat of vehicles because they are much safer there. Until recently, voluntary action

by auto manufacturers without the benefit of government regulation resulted in

61

4Traffic Safety Facts 2003, at 86, NHTSA (DOT HS 809-775). 5 ID. 6 NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Priorities: 2005-2009, Section

II.A.—Preventing Rollovers, NHTSA (Jan. 2005) (Priorities Plan).

most rear center seating position being equipped with only a lap belt. The use of

lap belts alone by children is well known to result in serious abdominal and spinal

injuries. It took an act of Congress to force NHTSA to require lap/shoulder belts in

all rear center seating positions. The issue of nontraffic, noncrash injuries should

not be left to chance. Children will continue to die needlessly unless and until Congress directs the agency to regulate in this area.

Children are also killed and maimed every day in the epidemic of motor vehicle

crashes that recurs on our nation’s highways every year. According to government

data, in 2002 motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death in the U.S. for

children 3 years and older, indeed for all Americans ages 3 to 33. Vehicle crashes

were the second leading cause of death among toddlers, ages 1-3. In 2003, 1,198

children under the age of 10 were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 147,000 more

suffered injuries, 14,000 of which were incapacitating injuries.4 These statistics do

not include any of the data that KIDS AND CARS and other organizations have collected about nontraffic, noncrash incidents. Some studies have shown that young

children could be in more danger in their own driveways than as passengers of automobiles. In addition, children 10 to 15 years of age suffered 1,372 deaths, as well

as 145,000 injuries and 14,000 incapacitating injuries in motor vehicle crashes in

the same year.5

Adults and teens also suffer the ravages of motor vehicle crashes. Current projections indicate there were a total of 42,800 traffic-related deaths in 2004. In order

to protect children and all vehicle occupants, long-overdue safety initiatives must be

adopted to stem the rising tide of motor vehicle fatalities. Fortunately, the Senatepassed version of H.R. 3 contains a number of measures that will substantially improve safety for every person and family members across the country.

Over 10,000 people die each year in rollover crashes. Unbelted occupants are often

fully ejected, but even belted occupants can be partially ejected, through windows

that break, and doors that open. Section 7251 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3

addresses both rollover prevention and enhanced protection for occupants in rollover

crashes.

Under Section 7251, NHTSA will issue rollover prevention performance criteria

consistent with stability enhancing technologies. Safety technologies, such as electronic stability control (ESC) systems, have had clear success in reducing crashes

in a number of large studies in the U.S. and Europe. ESC is particularly effective

in preventing SUV rollover crashes. And this technology is already standard equipment in most European-built vehicles and is available as either standard or optional

equipment in many U.S. models. But not all ESC systems are created equal. Testing

by Consumer Reports, for example, has found that some systems are more effective

than others in preventing vehicle rollover. The bill will direct NHTSA to evaluate

existing systems and establish minimum performance criteria for those systems.

Automakers indicated earlier this year that they plan to make ESC standard equipment in most SUVs, to be phased in over the next several model years. NHTSA’s

rulemaking agenda already indicates the agency plans to develop test procedures for

ESC and to make a decision on rulemaking this year.6 While adopting ESC technology may be on NHTSA’s rulemaking agenda with plans to develop test procedures for ESC and to make a rulemaking decision this year, direction from Congress

is necessary to ensure that these actions are carried out.

Occupants stand a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected

from the vehicle. Section 7251 directs NHTSA to develop a standard to reduce full

and partial occupant ejection because while ESC looks like it will prevent many rollover crashes that lead to ejection, it will not eliminate them all. According to the

agency, from 1999 to 2003 there was an average of 8,584 deaths (and 39,000 injuries) due to occupant ejection, both partial and full ejection, annually. Two-thirds

of these ejections occurred in rollover crashes. According to NHTSA’s Priorities Plan,

reducing occupant ejection is also on the agency’s rulemaking agenda. The Senate

provision gives the agency until October 2009 to issue a final rule on ejection prevention, and 30 months to complete an already pending rulemaking to ensure that

sliding doors on vans remain locked and do not open during a crash. These timelines

are considerably beyond NHTSA’s own schedule for action.

Finally, Section 7251 addresses the need to update the roof strength standard.

This standard has not been improved since it was first adopted some 34 years ago

and is widely recognized as failing to provide basic crashworthiness protection during rollovers. The agency has stated it plans to publish a notice of proposed ruleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
62

7 Reducing Rollovers, Washington Post, Saturday, June 18, 2005, p. A18. 8 Automotive News (Nov. 2004).

making on roof crush this year and to issue a final rule in 2006. Because such promises have not been fulfilled in the past, the Senate provision calls for a proposed

rule by the end of this year and a final rule by July 2008. Once again a generous

timeline is provided.

The Senate legislation addresses rollover, roof crush, and ejection in a single provision because these safety issues are interrelated. In a rollover crash sensors developed for ESC systems can be used to trigger safety belt pre-tensioners and side impact airbags. If the roof fails, however, not only is there intrusion into the passenger

compartment but other safety systems will not function properly. Roof failure can

affect the geometry of the safety belt system and result in the side impact air bags

not providing effective protection. In addition, roof crush will cause the vehicle side

windows to break allowing occupants to be fully or partially ejected. NHTSA has

historically approached each of these safety problems as separate issues. The Senate

bill encourages the agency to take a comprehensive and unified approach to solving

these interdependent safety problems.

Another important safety provision, Section 7252, is intended to ensure that

NHTSA completes its pending side impact rulemaking proceeding. This rulemaking

is vitally important because it is expected to assure that side impact air bags for

head protection are available as standard equipment. Studies have shown that side

impact air bags can make the difference between living and dying for occupants inside a vehicle struck in the side by an SUV or pickup truck. The Senate deadline

is July 1, 2008, for issuance of a final rule. Given that the proposed rule was issued

on May 14, 2004, over a year ago, the Senate’s allotment of an additional three

years for a final rule is quite reasonable.

The modest measures included in Sections 7251 and 7252 are necessary for safety.

They do not dictate the outcome of any rule—leaving the specific requirements for

the agency to determine. Furthermore, the provisions address only issues that

NHTSA has itself identified as core safety priorities. In all of these areas, the agency has already issued a proposed a rule or plans to issue one in the near future.

However, as we all know, the attention and even the good intentions of federal

agencies do not necessarily result in the accomplishment of internal plans and policies. To ensure that the NHTSA remains on track and carries through with its

plans, it is essential that Congress provide the added incentive and certitude that

comes with legislative goals and deadlines. In an editorial entitled Reducing Rollovers, the Washington Post strongly urged the House to accept the Senate measures,

concluding that under the circumstances ‘‘congressional prodding is not interference,

it is in order.’’ 7

Also significant is the section on 15-passenger van safety improvements. The safety of these vehicles is another issue of critical importance for children because of

the high percentage of such vans that are used to transport children to and from

schools and during and after school to extra-curricular activities. The House should

agree in conference to adopt the eminently reasonable requirement that 15-Passenger vans be rated for rollover resistance as part of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The House should also support the Senate bill’s restrictions

on the use of such vans as school buses unless they comply with the safety standards applicable to school buses.

We cannot wait any longer or continue to stand by while families needlessly suffer

the death or serious injury of a loved one. Every day, I work with parents who have

had to bury a child and who cannot understand why feasible and affordable safety

systems are not standard equipment on every car sold in the United States. When

we develop vaccines to protect children from deadly diseases, we make them available to everyone. Now is the time to make these motor vehicle safety vaccines available to every family. I can think of no more eloquent statement on the need for basic

safety features in all vehicles than the one from Automotive News, the publication

that covers the automotive industry, ‘‘All safety-related devices should become

standard equipment on all vehicles. No choice. It’s not an economic decision; it’s a

moral decision. When the choice becomes profit vs. lives, the decision should be simple.’’ 8

You have the power to help prevent the tragic injuries and fatalities that families

are suffering everyday from the death or serious injury of a loved one in a motor

vehicle related tragedy.

I urge the Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to support

enactment of the Senate motor vehicle safety provisions included in H.R. 3 and to

quickly pass H.R. 2230 the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2005.

63

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you.

Let me just clarify, just for the record. On your opening statement, I didn’t see a part of your opening, your written statement.

You said that you and your husband were locked in the trunk of

a car. For how long?

Ms. FENNELL. We were put in the trunk of car, taken to a secondary location, and that is where we were assaulted, robbed, and

left basically for dead in the trunk. Fortunately, we were able to

escape the confines in the trunk. Probably total we were in there

2 hours.

Mr. STEARNS. Today, we do have releases on the trunk, so—right,

so that if people are locked in the trunk, they can voluntarily get

out of the trunk.

Ms. FENNELL. Yes. That was my——

Mr. STEARNS. Was that because of your——

Ms. FENNELL. Actually, that was something I worked for.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Ms. FENNELL. Again, because my family was blessed, I found out

there wasn’t data about people being locked in the trunk. I built

a data base. I showed that it was a problem. Representative Stupak had a bill. We got to study the problem. It is now a regulation

that all vehicles purchased or leased in the United States must

have an inside trunk release. These type of incidents are no different than trunk release. I can only tell you the problems are

much, much, much bigger.

Mr. STEARNS. So you are trying to make the same argument for

the trunk release for your other items.

Ms. FENNELL. Absolutely.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Ms. FENNELL. It is non-traffic, it is non-crash. Nobody knows

how big the problem is.

Mr. STEARNS. Probably, one of the reasons why it is difficult to

get a lot of accurate information is because a lot of these, the cars

coming out of the driveway, occur on private property, and probably, the police are not called in as a traffic statistic, but perhaps,

it is done through the insurance companies, so it might be more

difficult to find that. Has that been true? How do you track—because you seem to be much more concerned about it than Dr.

Runge, who—his LexisNexis showed there was very little statistics

on this. How do you get your statistics? Is it because families call

you?

Ms. FENNELL. Well, it is a really sophisticated system, but it is

very objective, of course. We have a clipping service. We do

LexisNexis searches. We have people all over the country that

know the work that we do, and bring these to our attention. We

also work with child death review teams. It seems as though many

people don’t understand that when a child in the United States has

died, in most cases, there is a review. But there are police reports

when children die. The problem is, as they get rolled up into the

system at the State level, the FARS data base says, No. 1, if it

wasn’t a crash, No. 2, if it didn’t happen on a public road or highway, it doesn’t get included in our data.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

64

Ms. FENNELL. That is where those reports are being shredded. So

the information is there. All we need to do is change the purview,

and say please collect all fatalities. The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration is our agency to keep us safe, and make sure

the vehicles that we drive are safe. It shouldn’t matter where these

things are happening.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Mr. Webber, when I was looking at this, I

was reminded of the passive safety versus active safety, and I

guess the question is, and Ms. Fennell mentioned that you cannot

leave your car without a buzz, if you leave the keys in the car. You

know, if doors are cracked, you have an indication on the dashboard. Do you think the passive safety technology has sort of

reached its limit, in terms of saving lives and preventing injuries,

and now, the automobile industry needs to move to more active

safety, to the next level in motor vehicle safety? Or what is your

feeling on that, and of course, I am talking about, you know, what

has been done for the rollover? When I was in Detroit at the auto

show, they put me in a simulated vehicle, where a deer came out

in front, and I obviously turned to the left very quickly to avoid the

deer, but at that point, the car took over, and rather than me causing me a spin or possibly a turnover, the car, through stability control, was able to stabilize the vehicle. So do you think we are moving into this whole new area where the passive safety has gone as

far as we can, and we need to move into active safety?

Mr. WEBBER. Well, I wouldn’t say passive safety has gone as far

as it can. I want to go back to Ms. Fennell’s statement. We are very

sensitive to not only what went on in her life personally, but what

is being recommended, especially in H.R. 2230, and I just want to

make a point here. We have examined that proposal very, very

carefully. There are a lot of mandates in that bill, and one of those

mandates, for example, mandates a technology that just doesn’t

exist, and I am talking here about sensors for cars for parents who

leave their kids in the car. We don’t have that technology yet. It

is one thing to mandate it, but if you don’t have it. Now, are we

going to have it some day? Perhaps, but we need time. Everything

needs time, and it is just not there.

I want to point out, by the way, and you are probably familiar

with this, that there is a program in Utah that is working pretty

well. It is called Spot the Tot. And as people walk around, whether

you are in a shopping center, wherever, shouldn’t we all be constantly alert looking for something that is alive, whether it is a

child or animal in an automobile that may be buttoned up on a hot

day? But those sensors are not available yet. They are passive in

nature. I suspect the automobile industry, like any other industry,

takes that seriously, and down the road, perhaps. Perhaps we will

have that technology.

To your question directly about electronic stability control, and

yes, we have done a lot of work voluntarily on this, and it is very

exciting, and I have been on test sites, and have gone through the

maneuvers, and have seen or felt the car taking over to avoid the

crash. It is wonderful technology. It is not cheap, but as you know,

some of the manufacturers now are making it standard equipment.

We believe in voluntary programs. We have a long list of what we

have done voluntarily, in terms of crash avoidance, and that is in

65

Appendix 3 of my lengthier statement, but I want to say that in

this case, we really need a rule to level the playing field. And that

is why we are working with and supporting NHTSA’s effort in this

area. Crash avoidance is very, very critical, and this is one of the

ways to avoid crashes, to have the ESC in place in every vehicle.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. O’Neill, how do you compare NHTSA’s provision in this bill, in the Senate bill, with those from last year’s

NHTSA highway bill? Has the bill improved, in your opinion?

Mr. O’NEILL. They certainly are much less specific, and I think

that is an improvement. I think there is nothing wrong with Congress giving NHTSA general directions. I think Congress should

really avoid the specifics, and not get into deadlines, at least when

we have an agency that is run by a very competent Administrators,

as we do now.

Mr. STEARNS. My last question is directed to you, Ms.

Pikrallidas, is basically, you have mentioned this EPA labeling.

There is some concern that revising EPA labeling will affect fuel

economy calculations on the CAFTA program. Is that your intent—

CAFE.

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. No, not at all. This is—this amendment and

this language is simply about labeling. All it does is essentially ask

EPA to use existing tests that they already have that are much

more modern, to use adjustment factors to put onto labels of new

cars accurate fuel miles per gallon ratings. It has nothing to do

with CAFE standards. It has everything to do with just putting on

the cars what the actual miles per gallon is.

Mr. STEARNS. All right. My time has expired. The gentlelady, Ms.

Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Webber, you talked about, you associated

yourself with the notion of safety sells. And so with that in mind,

why not have some of those items as standard features, rather

than upgrades or optional features? Wouldn’t those be good marketing tools for automobiles?

Mr. WEBBER. I suppose we could load up every automobile with

everything we can possibly think of. There are always tradeoffs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am not talking about sun roofs. I am talking

about things like we did airbags.

Mr. WEBBER. I understand.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We did seatbelts.

Mr. WEBBER. I understand. A lot of that technology is expensive.

You could price the car out of the range of the typical consumer,

if you are not careful. I think the task of the industry is going to,

as they continue to develop safer cars, and cars with more safe

technology in them, is to get that price down, so that the typical

consumer can avoid that, and to make sure, too, that that safety

technology applies to an area where there really is a good, sound

data and statistics backing the need for that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I wanted to ask you about——

Mr. WEBBER. I think we are on the——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. [continuing] the question of price. Isn’t it true

that when technologies become standard features that those prices

really drop? Like what was the price of an airbag before and after

the issue of standard features?

Mr. WEBBER. Before it became standard equipment?

66

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Uh-huh.

Mr. WEBBER. I am told that originally, we were talking about $400 or $500 for that airbag. That has come down substantially,

correct. And I suspect on some of these safety technologies that is

what is going to happen over a period of time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am looking at price comparisons of vehicle

technologies put out by the advocates for highway and auto safety,

and they are talking about stronger roof systems, prevent roof

crush in rollover crushes, $25 to $50. Don’t you think most consumers, for a number of things, safety belt pre-tensioners, takes

the slack out of seat belts, $35 to $50. Vehicle safety label, $0.01.

I mean, there is a number of technologies, a number of items that

could be added at relatively low cost.

Mr. WEBBER. And indeed, they are being added. Many of them

depend on the choice of the consumer. These are assessable. The

consumer can purchase those and add them to the base price of the

automobile. That is the real, on the good news front, and by the

way——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. As optional features, you are saying.

Mr. WEBBER. Many of them optional features. More and more becoming standard features. ESC is a good example of how that eventually, we come a standard feature, in my opinion, in all vehicles,

if I follow the rulemaking on the part of NHTSA correctly. So that

trend, it is a good trend, and that trend will continue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. I wanted to—I am glad you believe that

we need to have some rules, and that we need to have some required features.

Mr. WEBBER. On electronic stability control, specifically, yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Fennell, I wanted to ask you what are the

costs of a number of the safety features that you are advocating,

and how do they compare to luxury features, for example, in automobiles?

Ms. FENNELL. The type of things we are looking for is an auto- reverse on power windows, and that would be $8 to $10 a window.

When you look at either a rear camera or rear sensors, you know,

once it would become a standard feature, I am thinking that comes

way, way down below $100. The—it is very important that people

understand that there is no performance standard whatsoever on

what you should be able to see when you are backing up your vehicle. Nothing exists. So when you are backing up, you are backing

blind, and it is not like people try to do this on purpose, but it really is the fact that because we are driving higher, wider, longer, bigger vehicles, that blind zone that you saw demonstrated on Good

Morning America is what is happening in America. You cannot see

little children when they are in that area.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. On the auto-reverse, I heard Dr. Runge say

that the recessing is sufficient, and that there is absolutely no evidence that there is any problem that recessing won’t solve.

Ms. FENNELL. That is not correct, and Dr. Runge could just go

to the Office of Defects Investigation and read the reports where

not only children, but let us say someone else in the vehicle has

raised a window not knowing that someone else’s fingers or hands,

I mean, there has been amputations. There is a problem, of course,

with children leaning out, and they are strangled to death. But

67

there is many, many other things that happen, and it is not just

through that person actuating the power window on their own.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Can you make sure that I get that information, and that we communicate that to Dr. Runge? One other thing.

There is—seems to be a difference of philosophy here on whether

or not we should include, for example, in the transportation bill, or

whether at all, it is necessary to have statutory requirements. You

are saying now that it is required for trunks, since your horrifying

incident, should we be including those requirements that are now

in the transportation bill, and why do you feel that those arguments that they are unnecessary are not valid?

Ms. FENNELL. I feel we absolutely need to have these regulations,

and I feel that all of the things that are in the Senate bill are very

generous in the timeframes. Dr. Runge himself said they are almost all very doable. The reason we need timelines and timeframes

is then we know that they will be done. You know, trunk entrapment was something that was suggested 30 years ago, and it never

happened, until we were able to get it, you know, to get it together

and make it happen. So I think it is very important that the deadlines are set. I don’t think we need to be proscriptive, but I think

we do need performance standards, and let the industry and

NHTSA figure out what is the best way, as a for instance, to make

sure when we are backing our vehicles, we are not driving blind.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My concern, Mr. O’Neill, with your view that

as long as you have someone who is as—an activist on these issues

as Dr. Runge is, then we don’t need to do anything. But of course,

that is not how government works. I mean, we don’t know how long

he is going to be there. We don’t know what the view or the level

of activity of anyone who would follow him. So I am actually very

surprised that your industry would want to set policy based on individuals.

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, we are not saying that nothing should be

done, or there should be no dictates. What we are saying is they

should be broad, rather than specific. For example, I am not at all

familiar with the issues on power windows. Ms. Fennell is. But it

seems to me that it is not necessary to conclude that a rule is the

final solution. Maybe, the agency could be told that this is an issue

that they should address, and maybe with voluntary agreements

with the manufacturers, we could get action faster than the process

of rulemaking, which is very slow and very deliberative, by design.

There are alternative ways, in many cases, to address problems

without mandating a rule. It may be that a rule is appropriate. It

may not be. I think what we should be saying to NHTSA is these

are issues that should be addressed, and addressed in the most efficient and fastest way possible.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The gentleman

from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass.

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For Mr. Webber and/or Mr.

O’Neill. There are—a couple of you may have mentioned this, I

think you mentioned it in your statements. There are market forces

involved in safety, and I am wondering to what extent market

forces are pushing automobiles to become safer, and second, insurance companies providing incentives, i.e., rebates, discounts, et

68

cetera. To what extent are—is the industry moving the process forward?

Mr. WEBBER. Well, as I said in my opening statement, Mr. Bass,

market forces are playing a very big role when it comes to safety.

And again, nine of the top 10 top features most desired by consumers as they purchase new automobiles today are to enhance vehicle or occupant safety, and the industry is responding to it. The

industry is acutely aware of it, and the industry is going to do everything it can to meet that consumer demand.

Mr. O’NEILL. I think there is no question that today, market

forces are very important. You heard from Dr. Runge that they expect to issue a new side impact rule very soon. That side impact

rule will, in effect, require manufacturers to provide airbags, side

impact airbags that protect the head. I think by the time that rule

becomes effective, virtually every new car being sold in America

will already have those airbags because of market forces. So market forces are very important and very effective. They are promoting safety technology very fast. Unfortunately, when it comes

to insurance mechanisms for incentives, most of your insurance

premium for injuries is for liability. That is for injuries that you

cause to people in other vehicles. So the first party, third party insurance system does not allow much room for incentives for you to

be purchasing a safe car, because your insurance is primarily paying for injuries that are occurring in somebody else’s car, if you are

at fault in a collision.

Mr. BASS. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might

change that? What are our options? Clearly, a safer car, you ought

to have lower insurance rates, and that would be an incentive to—

for consumers to want them.

Mr. O’NEILL. Well, the problem with insurance is that most of

your premium is not for injuries inside your car, but for injuries

you may cause in an at-fault collision——

Mr. BASS. Yes.

Mr. O’NEILL. [continuing] in other cars. If we had a true no-fault

insurance system, then there would be much more room for incentives for persons to buy a safe car.

Mr. BASS. Ms. Fennell, you—I just want to confirm that you

think the top priority for new safety is the automatic window stop

mechanism, that is No. 1, and then second, is the backup protection?

Ms. FENNELL. No, I would say that the backup protection is No.

1, just because of the true numbers. Again, we know that many

more children are dying because they have been backed over, and

you know, many more injured. In 1998, the data that Dr. Runge

referred to, when they collected the death certificates, that is actually before this huge change in the vehicle mix, where you know,

we used to all be driving sedans back in 1998. Now, everyone is

driving these larger trucks and SUVs. So with the over 120 people

identified at that time point, I also used that to bench my data. I

know what I find is the bare, bare minimum, vastly underestimates the true magnitude of the problem, and probably is 2 to 3

times bigger than the numbers that I report. I think it is really important to understand on all of these issues, that we know that

there is a problem. The technology already exists today. It is not

69

something we have to invent. The legislation is here. We have very

well-crafted legislation, and now, what we are really looking for is

that political will to move this forward, to move it forward as

quickly as we can, because it has taken so many years to even get

to this point, and with that, we will save the lives of many

people——

Mr. BASS. Okay. Real quickly——

Ms. FENNELL. [continuing] especially children.

Mr. BASS. Okay. Just going down the panel. There are three levels of control of safety, voluntary, relying on the industry, rulemaking through NHTSA, and Congressional action. Where do you

all stand in terms of what is the preferred route for assuring that

automobiles are safe, and you reach—and you attain that balance

between safety, economy, and cost? Rule, volunteer, Congress prescribes. Just real quick, because I only have 1 second left.

Mr. WEBBER. Voluntary action.

Mr. BASS. Okay.

Mr. WEBBER. It is quicker, and sometimes, a lot more competent.

Mr. BASS. Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’NEILL. I think we need a mixture of all of these approaches, and I will just give one example, at the risk of prolonging

it. The backup issue also involves rear visibility, and we do have

a problem with rear visibility in vehicles. We need some better

standards or performance for rear visibility, because some SUVs

actually put spare wheels blocking part of the rear window. So it

is not just cameras and backup warning devices. It is being able

to see more out of the back of a vehicle when you are looking rearward, and so a broad mandate would address this issue, rather

than——

Mr. BASS. Ms. Pikrallidas, do you have any comments on it or

not?

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Our expertise in AAA——

Mr. BASS. Okay. If you don’t, don’t worry about it. And Ms.

Fennell, I think you like as much—you want to see Congressional

action, because you support the legislation that you have outlined,

correct?

Ms. FENNELL. Well, because I am very fortunate to be working

in a coalition with the insurance industry, auto suppliers, consumer and health organizations, of course, I support this. But this

bill is needed to assure that the public will benefit in a timely way

from cost effective and feasible safety improvements. Voluntary solutions are not appropriate in these areas, such as rollovers. They

kill 10,000 people every year.

Mr. BASS. Okay. I have got to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panelists.

Ms. Pikrallidas, is that right? Did I get that right.

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Pikrallidas.

Mr. ROGERS. Pikrallidas. Did I get that right? Okay. Thanks.

My—is it Greek?

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. My Greek is awful, but thank you very much. I do

love the flaming cheese, though. Wonderful thing. In your testiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:53 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 22984.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
70

mony, you describe the Senate’s language on fuel economy labeling

as a win-win solution, and as carefully crafted to meet the concerns

of all parties. I found that a little curious, as I was—the language

that was changed was mine, of which we were not consulted in that

particular round of all parties, apparently. And you added something, at least were involved in the adding of the word processes,

and let me quote you in the language. ‘‘Update and revise the process used to determine fuel economy values for labeling purposes.’’

Can you describe what processes means? What do you mean by

that?

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Essentially, what—we—the Senate language

tries to accomplish is to suggest that the existing tests are 30 years

old and they are outdated. They don’t measure a lot of—they don’t

measure real world driving conditions. What we are asking is that

EPA use tests that they already have, for example, USO6, that was

set up and designed to simulate real world driving conditions. To

add the adjustment factors which you discussed in the House energy bill. To add those adjustment factors to more modern tests

that do simulate real world driving conditions, to come up with a

more accurate miles per gallon labeling system. In other words,

that comes up with miles per gallon that, a labeling system that

gives you, gives the consumer essentially what they are going to

get on the road when they drive it.

Mr. ROGERS. One of the concerns that I have, and the reason we

came up with the language that we did was that we believed that

there may be an inadvertent impact on CAFE standards, and I

think we all understand that CAFE standards is an issue that

should be looked at. We need to address it, but we should do it in

a very careful and calculated way, given the understanding of

weight and design, and lead time for design factors. Our next models—I mean, there is a lot that goes into this, and it is quite frankly, an old and antiquated formula that was fairly arbitrary. So we

need to be smart about that to not have a negative impact on economic terms from these automakers who are trying to play by the

rules. Right? So we got to this thing. We said this is—we don’t

want any vagueness in this language, and when you add process,

even by your own description, you have left the door open a mile

wide. And would you support, would AAA support making it very,

very clear in that language that it would not, in fact, impact CAFE

standards by the change of this? I mean, we want to make efficient

tests. We didn’t want multiple tests. It made no sense to do that.

Tests need to be modernized. We think we can do that with one

test. Would you support that language to clarify very certainly that

this does not impact CAFE standards?

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. Mr. Rogers—and you made these points very

eloquently during the House debate—we—I would agree with you,

we would agree with you, that CAFE is a whole other issue. It is

an issue that, as you have just said here, needs looking at in a very

serious way. Those standards are very old as well. I think we

would be open to looking at language that would clarify that we are

looking at only the labeling. We would want to make sure that the

language doesn’t do anything to prohibit getting more accurate labeling. But that is our intention. What we are looking for in this

bill is simply making it possible for a consumer to go buy a car,

71

read the labeling stickers, and then drive out on the road, and get

those miles per gallon ratings. That is really all we are trying to

accomplish in this bill, accurate labeling, so that consumers know

what they are buying, particularly in an age of high energy prices.

Mr. ROGERS. You bet. And I think that is exactly the intent of

the language that we proffered on the House floor, to do exactly

that. That is what we wanted as well, because we do think it is

important that you have an understanding of the mileage that you

are buying, because we want mileage to be part of market forces,

right? That is what we are all shooting for, because we think that

is good for the auto companies. We think they are going to make

voluntary changes in their design features, that keeps people safe,

and allows them to get more gallons, better gas mileage.

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. And if I could just—and the only concern we

have with the House language was that it was adding adjustment

factors to old tests. We just think there are newer tests that simulate real world driving that EPA already has. Not new tests, there

are existing tests. They should be used. That is what the adjustment factor should be applied to, and that was a part of that.

Mr. ROGERS. But you didn’t say that in your language. You made

it—it is fairly vague. Process, processes. What does that mean? It

could mean a whole bunch of things. And if I am somebody over,

who has got the sharp pencil, and get to figure that out, it might

look completely different from your intention. We need to be very,

very careful on this. You know, our automobile economy in the

United States is at a very interesting place in its history. And the

unintended consequences of being vague in language like this could

be catastrophic. And I think that you ought to go back to the drawing board and be supportive of very clear language on this, so that

we get exactly what we both want, very clear labeling, realistic labeling, that does not impact CAFE. That is another debate for another day, that needs to be very, very carefully looked at. So I will

take your response today that AAA does, in fact, support language

that is very clear that this does not, in any way, impact CAFE

standards.

Ms. PIKRALLIDAS. That is our intent. I mean, I don’t have legislative language in front of me, so I am at a disadvantage there, but

our intent is to deal with labeling. That is the intent of what we

are trying to get through the Senate bill, or through the Senate

language.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Thanks for your—I know that was a fun

exchange. I know you really enjoyed that. I do appreciate all of you,

and unfortunately, we are going to need to go vote. But this is very,

very important, and I am just glad to hear Mr. Bass ask the question, and I wish Mr. Markey were still here. You know, the automobile companies, and I would encourage all of you, and even those

listening, to come and see what kind of design work that they are

doing on their own for vehicle safety, for better gas mileage, for a

car that has technology that actually matches what the consumer

wants.

There is this great myth out there that overnight at the stroke

of a pen, things can change, and you are going to get a car that

gets 65 miles to the gallon that is as big as an Excursion, that you

are going to want to drive. I wish that were so, because if it were

72

so, believe me, you would have a car out there right now that

looked exactly that. And I give my hats off to all the automakers,

both foreign and domestic, who are aggressively pursuing technology that matches what people want. There is a reason that people are buying SUVs. They are safer, and they are bigger, and you

can take your whole family. Mom can pack up groceries and a bike

and drive her kids to six different places in the same day, and have

a vehicle that meets those needs of that particular family. And by

this rush by some to say that we are doing—the automobile industry is a horrible thing, doing horrible things to people, I think is—

well, it is wrong at best, and it may be worse. They are not doing

those kind of things, and I would encourage all of the folks, other

members, everybody, to come out and see what these automobile

companies are doing for vehicle safety and for our environment. It

is pretty exciting stuff, and to meet these actual designers and people who are in the back room trying to make this work, and to hear

their excitement and their enthusiasm is pretty neat.

They are not the victims. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. This

is awful important.

Mr. STEARNS. We have about 3 minutes left to vote.

Mr. ROGERS. And I would—at that, sir, yield back my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Very good. Very good. I thank the gentleman. I

thank him and his patience for staying and making his points, and

with that, the subcommittee will adjourn. I will thank the witnesses for their forbearance, too.

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Question 1: What are the problems you foresee with Congress mandating that

NHTSA promulgate a final rule by a certain date?

Response: Our concern over legislatively-mandated rules is not over improving

safety—indeed, industry is competing vigorously and moving rapidly to provide everincreasing levels of safety in its vehicles—but over process. Safety rulemakings are

often complex, involving myriad technical details, analyses of data, complex occupant safety and other tradeoffs, and consideration of necessary leadtime. Mandates

for rules to be issued by specified dates can short-circuit the necessary analyses and

potentially lead to unintended adverse safety consequences, as we have seen in prior

situations and as the NHTSA Administrator has testified.

The NHTSA mandated rulemakings in the Senate passed highway bill prejudge

the rulemaking process. By requiring that rules must be published, regardless of the

public rulemaking record on that subject, the Senate bill’s approach prejudges the

outcome of the rulemaking process and deprives NHTSA of it’s authority to make

safety related assessments and determinations of rulemaking priorities. Thus, we

cannot support any mandate requiring that final rules must be issued regardless

of information provided to the agency through its public notice and comment process. There is no need for the Congress to order NHTSA to both short-circuit its own

governing legislation and Presidential Executive Orders regarding the criteria for

establishing rules as well as the requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act

regarding responding to public comments. We believe that the Congress, through

oversight and other hearings, can influence NHTSA regulatory actions without mandating the promulgation of specific rules.

The complexity of safety rulemakings requires that careful attention be accorded

to the inherent tradeoffs associated with regulations. In the past, we have seen

tradeoffs among adult high-speed protection in frontal crashes and associated harm

to children and others in low-speed crashes. The March 6, 2004 IIHS Status Report,

notes that the 1997 rule issued by NHTSA that allowed manufacturers to produce

‘‘depowered’’ air bags was the right decision then and still is now. In designing occupant restraint systems, manufacturers must carefully balance high-speed and lowerspeed protection, protection for belted vs. unbelted occupants, and protection for

73

large adults and smaller adults and children. As NHTSA itself has testified, there

are complex interactions between roof strength and rollover propensity and glassplastic glazing to reduce ejections for unbelted occupants vs. the possibility of increased head and neck injury to belted occupants. All involve safety tradeoffs. Also,

tradeoffs exist between safety and fuel economy. The agency must be able to correctly balance these complexities and arbitrary deadlines by which rules must be

issued are inconsistent with this need.

Question 2: Can you comment on Dr. Runge’s testimony as to harmonization of

safety standards internationally, as well as the need to engage in research and development in fuel integrity of hydrogen powered vehicles?

Response: The Department seeks to clarify its authority to participate and cooperate in international activities to enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety worldwide.

This would allow NHTSA’s participation in international activities aimed at identifying the best practices for reducing traffic fatalities and injuries, particularly in developing countries. Recognizing that motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility

of governments, manufacturers, and consumers, the Alliance agrees with NHTSA

that combining motor vehicle safety initiatives being pursued in the United States

with those of other countries can help to promote the cost-effective deployment of

safety technologies worldwide, including in developing countries. International cooperation and collaboration in the development of global safety standards permits

participating governments to leverage research investments from other countries

and economic communities thereby increasing the scientific data and innovation

pool on which regulations can be based.

The Department seeks funding to engage in fuel system integrity research involving hydrogen powered vehicles. This initiative would support the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCar Program. Ultimately, this research would

facilitate science-based evaluation for the need and scope of any fuel system integrity regulations for hydrogen powered vehicles. Such regulations already exist for

vehicles fueled or powered by gasoline, compressed natural gas, and electricity. The

Alliance is supportive of science-based rulemakings as well as the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCar Program and thus, supports the funding

requested by NHTSA.

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA, TO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TIM MURPHY

Dr. Runge, I would like to ask you a few questions about the Early Warning Reporting requirements. It is my understanding that manufacturers of more than 500

vehicles per year must submit detailed data on a quarterly basis, while manufacturers of less than 500 vehicles have less burdensome reporting requirements. The

TREAD Act states that regulations such as the Early Warning Reporting requirements shall not impose requirements unduly burdensome taking into account the

manufacturer’s cost of compliance and NHTSA’s ability to use the information in a

meaningful manner.

Question 1: While I recognize that NHTSA has a simpler report for small manufacturers, when a manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles per year but still

does so in limited quantities of an individual vehicle model, i.e. custom or semi-custom built, will you be able to realistically use that detailed data in a meaningful

way?

Response: Yes. The agency’s current methods for analyzing Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data take into account the volume of production. Thus, even though the

production of some models might be small, NHTSA adjusts the data to reflect production. In the past, the agency’s investigations have influenced safety recalls where

the vehicle population was substantially lower than 500. During the EWR rulemaking, NHTSA presented an analysis of recalls conducted by manufacturers with

an annual production between 500 and 1500 vehicles to gauge the nature of the impact that small manufacturers have on motor vehicle safety. This analysis found

that small manufacturers have significant safety-related defects that can have a significant impact on motor vehicle safety.

Question 2: How many vehicles need to be produced in a given year for there to

be some real statistical significance to the individual model data they provide you

under the EWR requirements?

Response: Statistical significance is not a necessary component for detecting a potential safety defect. The Agency’s investigative staff relies on historical trend data

to develop comparison information as an indicator of potential defects. The current

method used to analyze EWR aggregate data produce a ranking of make, model, and

model year vehicles for each component category. This ranking is used by agency

74

investigators, along with other agency data, to determine which issues warrant investigations. However, NHTSA statisticians are continuing to evaluate statistical

methods that may be appropriate to effectively analyze the EWR data.

The EWR data is being evaluated to assess its ability to identify trends that are

potentially related to a safety defect. The assessment will evaluate a number of different issues including whether safety-related defect trends can be identified in individual models produced in limited quantities.

Question 3: What analysis did you do during the EWR rulemaking process to determine that 500 vehicles per year is the best dividing line between a small volume

manufacturer and a large one? Why have you defined a small volume manufacturer

as one producing 5,000 or more vehicles in other rulemakings, specifically the advanced airbag regulations and the recent tire pressure monitoring system regulations?

Response: As noted in response to Question 1, above, the agency analyzed both

recalls and investigations and determined that manufacturers who produce between

500 and 1500 vehicles produce products that contain serious safety defects. Thus,

to exclude this category of manufacturers would potentially allow serious safety hazards to go unremedied.

Every rulemaking is unique. Therefore, the underlying considerations that determine the number of manufacturers that will be subjected to one rule are not necessarily the same as those that determine who will be subjected to a different rule.

For instance, the requirements for advanced air bags are more complex and difficult

to adopt than the requirements to report EWR aggregate counts. Moreover, the exclusions in the advance air bag rulemaking simply deferred compliance by low volume subsidiaries until the end of the phase-in period. It did not exclude them from

adopting the requirements as would be the case if the reporting threshold for EWR

where raised to 5,000 vehicles.

Question 4: What analyses, if any, have been published based on the EWR data

you have been collecting? Has NHTSA identified any previously undetected defects

on its own as a result of this data?

Response: To date, the agency has not published any analyses based on EWR

data. We are unable to publish an analysis of the data reported by manufacturers

pursuant to the EWR regulation because the data is confidential by regulation.

The agency has publicly stated that the EWR information alone is not sufficient

by itself to determine whether the product contains a safety-related defect. The usefulness of the EWR data is to identify trends that are potentially related to a safetyrelated defect. If the agency’s assessment of the EWR data taken with all other

available data obtained by the agency indicates a possible trend, the agency will

open an investigation. Since manufacturers started reporting EWR information in

late 2003, EWR has assisted in identifying some potential safety-related trends.

Some of these investigations remain open. One was closed. Some investigations influenced safety-related recalls and one service campaign. Also in 2004, the agency

influenced some domestic recalls based on information from submission of foreign

recalls or foreign campaigns.

Æ