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

76–575 2012

H.R. lll, THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

ACT OF 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2010 

Serial No. 111–120 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 34 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 41 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 42 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 43 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 44 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 44 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 45 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 47 

WITNESSES

David Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................................................................................................................... 50 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 144 

Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers .... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers .......................................................................................... 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 153 

Joan Claybrook, Former Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................................................................................... 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety .............................. 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute ................... 119 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 157 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD

Discussion draft ....................................................................................................... 3 

Letter of May 12, 2010, from American Honda Motor Company, Inc. to the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

H.R.llll, THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

ACT OF 2010 

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010 

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:07 a.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby Rush 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Sarbanes, Sutton, Stupak, Green, Barrow, Space, Braley, Dingell, Waxman (ex officio), 

Whitfield, Stearns, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Anna Laitin, Professional Staff; Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Timothy Robinson, Counsel; 

Bruce Wolpe, Senior Adviser; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director; David Kohn, Press Secretary; Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier, Intern; Althea Gregory, Intern; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Shannon Weinberg, Minority Counsel; Robert Frisby, 

Minority FTC Detailee; and Sam Justice Costello, Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will now come to order. This chair recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening statement but before my 5 minutes begin, I just want to take a moment to welcome 

all those who are witnesses today and those who are viewing this 

from the position of the gallery or those who are sitting in the audience today. Now the chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the 

purposes of opening statement. The focus of today’s hearing is the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 draft legislation. Two months ago 

we assessed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

functionality and effectiveness. The unfortunate accident resulting 

from unintended acceleration revealed to us the need to modernize 

NHTSA. The laws were written in the 1960s and 1970s. They do 

not reflect today’s global marketplace. 

And I want to take a moment to comment Chairman Waxman for 

his leadership in drafting this important piece of legislation. There 

are five suggestions that this legislation will attempt to address. It 

energizes the agency and with the expertise and technology that is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

so in need to achieve its primary goal while responding to today’s 

rapidly advancing electronic technology that is really at the heart 

of all the new vehicles on America’s highways. Secondly, it promotes safety and innovation by establishing tougher baseline of 

standards that better protect consumers. Certainly, it enhances the 

enforcement mechanism by increasing the agency’s authority to remove vehicles from the road if these vehicles pose a serious, imminent hazard and if the manufacturers do not on their own take appropriate action. 

Next is it increases transparency and accountability. The concept 

of transparency and accountability are pre-requisites for any effective policy regulation. And, lastly, we reform the safety standards 

for consumers with this piece of legislation. We also protect our industries and the American worker by helping to save jobs and by 

allowing the industry and the American workers to continue to regain consumer confidence in their brand as they continue to build 

and sell cars and to generally help America’s auto industry stay 

competitive in the global economy. This is what the proposed Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 is attempting to do. We will get it done. 

Some of the public will question the need for new legislation to improve the safety and quality of vehicles. I for one, and I am sure 

that other members of this subcommittee join me, strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with those who take that kind of position. 

Despite the fact that I am sure that automakers are attempting 

to do all they can to win back consumers and improve the safety 

standards and equipment that is located and found in their vehicles, I think it is more reasonable to say that perhaps the horrific 

unintended acceleration incidents that have been well-documented 

before this subcommittee and others might not have happened if 

we had had the appropriate regulations already on the books. It is 

my firm belief that this legislation and the reforms that it mandates are long overdue. Simply put, it is time to act, and the time 

to act is now. 

Before I yield back the balance of my time, I want to thank the 

witnesses again for taking the time out of their schedule to advise 

members of this subcommittee. The draft legislation that we are 

examining today is the result of a series of consultations with 

stakeholders from the consumer groups and also from manufacturers and also from the Administration. We all have the same objective, which is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce risk 

through technology, education, improved safety standards, and 

through vigorous, robust enforcement. It has been a selective and 

constructive effort, and I am looking forward to hearing from our 

witnesses again. Thank you, and with that I yield back the balance 

of my time. And I recognize now the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

[The discussion draft follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
3 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 7 here 76575A.001
4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 8 here 76575A.002
5 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 9 here 76575A.003
6 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 10 here 76575A.004
7 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 11 here 76575A.005
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 12 here 76575A.006
9 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 13 here 76575A.007
10 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 14 here 76575A.008
11 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 15 here 76575A.009
12 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 16 here 76575A.010
13 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 17 here 76575A.011
14 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 18 here 76575A.012
15 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 19 here 76575A.013
16 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 20 here 76575A.014
17 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 21 here 76575A.015
18 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 22 here 76575A.016
19 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 23 here 76575A.017
20 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 24 here 76575A.018
21 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 76575A.019
22 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 26 here 76575A.020
23 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 27 here 76575A.021
24 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 28 here 76575A.022
25 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 76575A.023
26 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 30 here 76575A.024
27 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 31 here 76575A.025
28 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 32 here 76575A.026
29 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is 

our third hearing on NHTSA and auto safety issues including an 

oversight subcommittee hearing into the Toyota recalls. And today 

we are going to hear testimony about the discussion draft for the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, and we look forward to that testimony. During those previous hearings, we learned that we now are 

in the safest period of automobile history. NHTSA’s report for 2009 

revealed the lowest fatality rate on record, at one point, 1/6 fatality 

per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Thirty years earlier, 1979, 

that number was 3.34 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. We have more cars and more drivers on the road now than 

we did then. 

Today we have more than 255 million vehicles registered, and 

they travel over 2.9 trillion miles per year. Thirty years ago we had 

157 million vehicles registered traveling 1.5 trillion miles per year. 

These are impressive statistics and it speaks volumes about not 

only the job that NHTSA has done but it also speaks to the innovation of automobile manufacturers. And we also know that 90 percent of all accidents are caused by human error. Now today we are 

looking at this draft and this draft requires 7 specific safety mandates on manufacturers. It increases penalties exponentially. It expands the reporting data manufacturers must turn over to NHTSA 

without confidentiality protections. 

And the thing that is most troublesome about this is that this 

is being proposed without taking into account what industry is already doing, what safety reviews are currently underway, and most 

significantly, whether this will result in any real safety benefits 

that saves lives. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that we really 

even know the cause of the Toyota acceleration problem. All of us 

want our cars to be safer. We want regulators to have the appropriate tools to be an effective regulator. And Mr. Strickland testified in his last appearance before us that he had the necessary expertise to deal with this issue. And so I am very much concerned 

about the breadth of this bill, the width of this bill, the mandates 

in this bill. 

I am particularly concerned about the unilateral authority for the 

administrator to stop production, sale, distribution, or even importation with no time limits, and I also think there is a lack of due 

process for manufacturers that may be hit with one of these mandatory stop orders. So I look forward to the testimony today. We 

have a lot of unanswered questions. I know this will be a productive hearing, and I might just also say another part of this bill that 

I am pretty much concerned about is that it gives authority to 

bring fines of up to $250 million against corporate executives for 

data that they submit to NHTSA. So we need to explore this closely, and I am confident that at the end of this hearing, at the end 

of this process, we will come up with a system that will improve 

highway safety and will be productive for the American people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
30 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 35 here 76575A.027
31 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 36 here 76575A.028
32 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 37 here 76575A.029
33 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 38 here 76575A.030
34 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chairman 

emeritus of the full committee, the dean of the house, my friend 

from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening statement. 

It is an excellent one and I would urge everybody to read it. However, in the interest of time of the committee, I would ask unanimous consent that it be inserted into the record, and I thank you 

for your courtesy and commend you for holding this hearing. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. RUSH. So ordered. Now the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 2 minutes for the purposes of 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. I appreciate it very much. I look forward to the testimony 

today on what this legislation can offer to the National Highway, 

Traffic, and Safety Administration, both in terms of resources and 

in terms of extra authority. Of course, you know, Americans will 

make reasonable assumptions that we are protecting them until an 

incident occurs and then it points out some of the thin places in 

the oversight and regulation that we have, and we got to make 

sure that the agency is responsible for that oversight, have the 

tools they need, and have been given the charge that they deserve 

in order to provide that protection. 

I am particularly interested in the testimony today that I hope 

will address the need or the issue of technology getting ahead of 

our oversight and how we have to keep up with that, and particularly the enhanced expertise when it comes to electronics within 

the department because of course that is where all the cutting edge 

technology has taken the automobile fleets. So I am looking forward to the testimony. I appreciate the hearing, and I yield back 

my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the ranking member for the 

full committee, my friend from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes for 

the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. I thank the distinguished chairman. It is good news 

that you appear to want to move in a regular order process on this 

piece of legislation. Those of us on the Republican side, at least myself, have just now seen it or we saw it last week, so it is going 

to take us a while to digest it, Mr. Chairman. But you have shown 

that you want to use the subcommittee process in terms of hearings and markup before we go to full committee, and I sincerely appreciate that. There are some provisions in the proposed legislation 

that make sense making the NHTSA consumer complaint database 

more user friendly. It is certainly something that I can support. I 

don’t know that we have to have an act of Congress to make that 

happen, but I do support the concept. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
35 

I don’t have an objection to targeting resources to improve the 

agency’s technical capability. It is obvious that in this day and age 

we need our regulatory authorities to have as much technical competence as it is possible to have. Standardizing the brake override 

function is something that we certainly support. There are provisions in the proposed legislation that are troublesome. Ranking 

subcommittee member Whitfield mentioned some of those. I echo 

his concerns. I also echo or at least state that it appears this legislation in its current form would increase taxes. It would give the 

government some authority that I am not sure it deserves and 

some of the penalties to me seem like overkill. 

I don’t believe this is the time, Mr. Chairman, to just pile on the 

automobile industry or at least potentially pile on because they are 

facing tough times. On the issue of unintended acceleration, it is 

obvious that this is something that we still don’t have an answer 

for with regards to what happened at Toyota. NHTSA has found, 

I understand, that Toyota has violated some of the reporting requirements of the TRED Act. They are not resubmitting its reports 

of unintended acceleration in a timely manner. NHTSA is a consequence of that and other Toyota issues, has assisted Toyota with 

the largest civil penalty ever assessed by itself, a little over $16 

million. Six million Toyota cars have been recalled in the United 

States and adjustments have been made. 

I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, those adjustments really address 

the problem, but at least Toyota did make an attempt to make 

some of those adjustments. We still don’t have a—at least if we do, 

I don’t know it, a concrete explanation of what has actually happened and why it happened. We do have two separate panels that 

are looking into the issue. I am prepared to wait for those expert 

studies to be presented to the committee before we begin the process of mandating new requirements that almost certain will raise 

cost and may be of questionable safety benefit although if the evidence is conclusive that there is a real safety benefit certainly myself and the other Republicans are going to be supportive of that. 

We have specific concerns with the draft legislation, Mr. Chairman. It mandates that all vehicles be equipped with a data event 

recorder. I have a new hybrid, Tahoe hybrid, made in my congressional district in Arlington, Texas, and it has one of these recorders. I can see why you would want to have it especially if your vehicle is in an accident and you are accused of being at fault. One 

of the workers at the plant that gave a test drive in my new vehicle 

said that he has one on his and was able to point out in an accident that he was involved in because of the data recorder that he 

was not at fault and he had the data to back it up. So I certainly 

see that there is some value to these devices but we also have some 

privacy concerns, and we want to make sure that people know that 

the data recorder is in their vehicle and how it is going to be used. 

As I said, the civil penalties in the draft legislation are excessive. 

Civil penalties of $5,000 per day are capped at $16.4 million. The 

draft legislation would raise that to $25,000 per violation and remove the cap. We certainly need to investigate that, Mr. Chairman. 

My time has almost expired, so I have got a few more things to say, 

but I will put that in the record. Again, kudos to you and Chairman Waxman for agreeing to go through regular order. If RepubVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:09 Jan 19, 2013 Jkt 076575 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A575.XXX A575

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
36 

licans are actually included in the drafting and in the witness process if there is a need to legislate, I am sure that Mr. Whitfield will 

be very interested in working with you and I with you and Mr. 

Waxman to try to do what is responsible. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
37 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 43 here 76575A.031
38 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 44 here 76575A.032
39 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 45 here 76575A.033
40 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 46 here 76575A.034
41 

Mr. SARBANES [presiding.] Thank the gentleman for his comments. We have been joined by the chair of the full committee, 

Chairman Waxman. The chair will yield 5 minutes to Chairman 

Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank Chairman Rush for convening the hearing on this discussion 

draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, and for being a coauthor of the bill. This may be the most important vehicle safety 

bill in a generation. The objectives of this bill are to improve vehicle safety and strengthen the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. With new safety standards requirements for data recorders, expertise at NHTSA, we hope to restore consumers faith 

in the cars the drive and the companies that make those cars. With 

new resources and tools available, we hope NHTSA will be able to 

critically evaluate the claims auto manufacturers make about the 

operation of their vehicle, conduct more thorough defect investigations and bring about timely recalls when necessary. 

This legislation is what I call a win, win, win. It is a win for the 

public by protecting vehicle safety, a win for the auto industry by 

restoring confidence in their vehicles, and a win for the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration by giving the agency tasked 

with overseeing vehicle safety programs the resources to do the job. 

The recent Toyota recall severely rattled the driving public. This 

legislation meets the public’s urgent concerns. The bill has four 

components. First, it improves electronics and expertise at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and calls for new 

safety standards to require brake overrides, to prevent pedal entrapment, and to meet performance requirements for electronic vehicle components. 

New vehicles would also be required to be equipped with robust 

event data recorders to assist defect investigators in accident reconstruction. Second, it provides NHTSA with new enforcement authorities including lifting the cap on civil penalties and granting 

the agency the authority to order a recall if the agency identifies 

an imminent hazard of death or serious injury. Third, it requires 

greater transparency of early warning data submitted by companies to help NHTSA identify defect trends and restores judicial 

oversight of agency decisions to deny a defect petition. And finally, 

the bill addresses NHTSA’s chronic resource efficiency for vehicle 

safety programs with an increased authorization of appropriations 

and the introduction of a modest user fee. 

In addition to Chairman Rush, I want to thank Chairman Dingell for his contributions to this draft. I know that Chairman Dingell still has concerns about the bill, but he and his staff made 

many helpful and important contributions to the draft language, 

and it is my goal that when we report this bill from full committee 

Chairman Dingell and I will support the final product. I also hope 

that we will be able to earn the support of Ranking Member Barton 

and other members on his side of the aisle so this will be a true 

bipartisan effort. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
42 

What this bill does not do, and what no legislation can do, is ensure that NHTSA has the willingness and leadership to use its authority to the fullest extent. For that, we are relying on you, Administrator Strickland, and I must take this opportunity to commend you for your leadership overseeing the agency’s response to 

the Toyota situation beginning just moments after your confirmation. It is clear that together with Secretary LaHood you are committed to putting NHTSA ahead of the curve when it comes to safety and it is our intention to make sure this bill gives you the authority and the resources you need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chair now recognizes Representative Sutton from Ohio for 5 minutes. Sorry about 

that. We got a vote coming up so we will try to get as many in as 

we can. Representative Stearns from Florida is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding 

this hearing on a draft bill. This is a draft bill, the Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act. I understand, and I think all of us do on this committee, the importance of needing to improve the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA’s ability to handle and manage automobile recalls and the need for some changes to its safety 

authorities. I think we all agree. I support enhanced motor vehicle 

safety protections for American consumers, but, frankly, I do have 

some concerns with the draft bill as currently written. To begin 

with, this bill mandates that all auto manufacturers equip their vehicles with an event data recorder, an EDR, within 2 years, and 

also mandates the collection of additional specific data. 

Most vehicles on the road today already have EDRs. This bill will 

allow the government access to all sorts of new information that 

these EDRs record in the name of ‘‘improving vehicle safety.’’ My 

colleagues, there is some serious concerns about privacy here. What 

is the information it can collect and how is it going to be used and 

will the consumer know about it? This bill also contains a brand 

new text as mentioned, an auto manufacturers text. It is phased 

in at $3 per vehicle and increases to $9 per vehicle within 3 years. 

Now this is a tax. This is not within the jurisdiction of this committee. We have no oversight of it. 

We also need to steer clear of dictating the way cars are designed, where parts are placed, particularly when it is unrelated to 

safety and there is no specific evidence demonstrating an identifiable problem. This bill contains overly prescriptive rulemaking authority for NHTSA to determine the size, location of all keyless ignition systems and a pedal placement standard. Manufacturers 

may have to redesign their current system. Obviously, those costs 

are going to be passed on to the consumer. This bill has serious 

economic ramifications. There is an $80 million increase for 

NHTSA. Many of us are concerned about that. I think we all agree 

that NHTSA needs some support but this $80 million, how is it 

going to be spent? Where is it going to be used? Is it going to hire 

more bureaucrats or is it actually going to make a difference? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
43 

There are additional problems with the elimination of a cap on 

civil penalties and a broad new eminent hazard authority that requires no fact checking. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can move this 

bill forward but in a bipartisan manner because I think the bill 

needs improvement today. Thank you. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. We have got votes pending so I would 

encourage people if they could maybe keep their opening statements a little bit shorter, we could get to a couple more people before we adjourn for a short break. I recognize the gentlelady from 

Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the last few 

months consumers have been alarmed by the recall of millions of 

Toyota vehicles due to unintended acceleration. For consumers, the 

safety of a vehicle is a top priority which is why it was especially 

daunting to learn that for Toyota the decision of whether to recall 

vehicles on our roads was made outside of the U.S. Our consumers 

expect better and with the Motor Vehicles Safety Act we have the 

opportunity to ensure that NHTSA’s mission to save lives, prevent 

injuries, and reduce economic costs due to traffic, to road traffic 

crashes is accomplished. It is essential that we work together to 

produce a good bill, a bill that will address the problems that have 

become apparent in recent months. 

NHTSA must be capable of conducting necessary, in-depth investigations into new and complex systems and lighter materials in 

vehicles. NHTSA must also be able to effectuate necessary, timely 

recalls so that U.S. officials are not left in the position of having 

to travel overseas to ask for a voluntary recall of unsafe vehicles 

on our roadways carrying our families, and we must find a way to 

address the revolving door issue so that the American people can 

be assured that officials are always working to ensure the safety 

with the sharp focus that it requires. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

also would require NHTSA to promulgate a rule that requires all 

vehicles to be equipped with an event data recorder, which I think 

is overdue. In 2004, some automakers urged NHTSA to adopt a 

federal motor vehicle safety standard that mandated the installation of event data recorders on passenger cars and light trucks. 

NHTSA did not go forward at that time with the proposed rulemaking for EDRs, and that was 6 years ago, so I am concerned 

that the issues with the unintended acceleration in recent months 

may also delay the agency’s rulemaking of stability control for commercial vehicles. And I would like to hear about when NHTSA 

plans to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for stability control systems for commercial vehicles. I want to stress that I appreciate your commitment to fulfilling NHTSA’s important responsibilities, Administrator Strickland, and the commitment of Secretary 

LaHood, and I look forward to hearing from you and all the witnesses today about ways we might improve the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thank you. 

Mr. SARBANES. The chair recognizes Mr. Latta from Ohio for 2 

minutes. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
44 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Whitfield, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss the 

discussion draft on the Motor Vehicle Safety Act for 2010. I think 

it is very important that the United States looks at the recent incidents involving motor vehicle safety and ensure that our citizens 

are safe behind the wheel. With that in mind, I have serious concerns about this draft legislation and particularly with privacy concerns and user fees that will be passed along to consumers. Section 

401 of this legislation requires a new per vehicle manufacturer 

user fee. This provision is not capped in the proposed legislation 

and will be passed along to the consumer. My district, the 5th of 

Ohio, currently has an average unemployment rate of 13.5 percent. 

The federal government cannot continue to hinder businesses 

and consumers with unnecessary fees and burdensome regulations. 

In addition, I have concerns with Section 107 mandating the EDRs 

in all new vehicles within 2 years. Not only will this mandatory requirement drive up the cost to the manufacturer which will, again, 

be passed along to the consumer but will with no opt out provision 

or ability to turn the device off will bring serious privacy concerns 

for American citizens. 

While it is my understanding that 80 percent of new cars sold 

today are equipped with EDRs there still remains significant privacy concerns dealing with the rights of what information the government has access to including information gathering for court orders, defect investigations, and vehicle safety improvement information gathering. Finally, this draft legislation will authorize $720 

million for fiscal year 2011 to 2013 and 2011. In 2011 until 2013 

this is an $80 billion increase in authorized funding without an explanation on how these additional funds will be used by NHTSA 

or how it will go towards saving lives. This legislation is in the 

same theme of hidden costs and tax increases on hard-working 

Americans. 

At the time of economic hardship, this legislation looks to force 

more bureaucratic mandates on businesses. Our nation’s economic 

future requires that this Congress and Administration exercise serious fiscal restraint and stop excessive spending and be held accountable and be transparent. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your 

holding the hearing on the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. I look 

forward to working with you and Ranking Member Whitfield, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Whitfield, for holding this hearing on draft legislation to strengthen the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA’s 

authority to provide the resources necessary to keep consumers 

safe on the road. On February 23 of this year, I chaired a hearing 

on the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee to examine the 

response by Toyota and NHTSA to incidents of sudden unintended 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
45 

acceleration in Toyota vehicles. The subcommittee found that 

NHTSA lacks the personnel, resources, and authority to adequately 

address and investigate auto safety complaints. My subcommittee 

will further examine these issues in a May 20 hearing. As we continue to explore the specific failures of Toyota and the federal regulators in this specific incidence, it is imperative that we begin the 

process of enacting legislation to address the weaknesses we already know exist. 

Through the Toyota investigation, we learned a lot about event 

data recorders or EDRs and about the problems that exist in allowing federal regulators, law enforcement, and vehicle owners, consumers, access to the data they contain. The new requirements contained in Section 107 of the draft bill making EDRs mandatory setting a set standard of data they must contain and ensuring they 

are accessible with commercially available equipment will provide 

all parties the information they need to troubleshoot, investigate, 

and ultimately remedy future safety issues. Granting it is an eminent hazard recall authority is an equally necessary step to protect 

Americans. I am also pleased that committee draft requires that information submitted through the early warning reporting system is 

publicly disclosed. I look forward to delving into these issues more 

thoroughly and hearing from our witnesses as to whether the disclosure requirements in the draft legislation adequately provide 

regulators, law enforcement, and consumers access to the information they need. 

I look forward to a productive hearing to discuss meaningful improvements to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and to our additional oversight hearings. I appreciate the willingness of our witnesses to be here, and I will listen closely to any 

suggestions they may have to improve this legislation. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman. We are going to have one 

more opening statement before we adjourn for the votes. I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing on the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I would like to acknowledge Chairman Rush for bringing this legislation forward 

and his hard work on behalf of consumers. The goals of this draft 

legislation strengthening NHTSA and improving vehicle safety are 

good, but I have concerns about the steps it takes to get there. To 

start with, Section 202 provides NHTSA with new expansive imminent hazard authority to order a manufacturer to stop production, 

sale, distribution or importation of vehicles. I am concerned that 

this provision would short circuit the recall process, not improve it, 

and it will give unilateral authority to the Administrator while taking away due process from manufacturers. 

What is more alarming is that this provision is in the draft while 

DOT Secretary LaHood and NHTSA Administrator Strickland both 

previously testified that they had existing authority to pursue potential violations. The draft legislation also places a vehicle safety 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
46 

user fee on manufacturers which is, of course, another word for a 

tax increase that will raise the cost of buying a car on families. 

Furthermore, this tax is uncapped and would continue to rise each 

year after it is enacted. Not only does the draft increase the cost 

of vehicles for consumers but it also increases the burden of American taxpayers by raising the authorized funding for NHTSA by 

$80 million over 2 years with no explanation of where this new 

spending will come from or how the money will be used. 

While I understand that we need to examine improving NHTSA’s 

capabilities, we must keep in mind the need to restore fiscal discipline. With a $1.5 trillion deficit there might be some in Washington who don’t see anything wrong with increasing a budget by 

40 percent over 2 years, but there are also those of us who are adamant that we must reign in the out of control spending that is taking place here in this Congress, and finally there are also 2 provisions I must mention. Section 201 eliminates the total cap on penalties, and the second provision is 301 that expands the categories 

of data that must be made public as part of any early warning reporting program, which could include confidential business information and unwarranted claims. 

Removing the cap on total penalties and requiring the disclosure 

of proprietary information makes me question who we are trying 

to strengthen, NHTSA or the trial lawyers. I would like to close by 

reiterating that I am pleased we are trying to improve vehicle safety and support NHTSA, but I am concerned that this bill is driving 

down the wrong road. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. I have been promised by 

the next two that they will be 30 seconds, real quick. Mr. Green 

of Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent for my full statement to be placed in the record and just make 

one statement. I introduced H.R. 5169, the Event Data Recorder 

Enhancement Act. The draft bill, our bill I think looks like the 

Chevy whereas what the draft is more like a Mercedes, and we 

would hope we could afford the Chevy plan on the EDR. But I am 

glad the bills—we have a draft. Obviously, after our hearing we 

heard from Toyota owners. We need legislation, and I would be 

glad to work with the chair on the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 53 here 76575A.035
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 54 here 76575A.036
49 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Gingrey is recognized for 100 milliseconds. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, you know I am from Georgia and 

not Maryland so that might be awfully difficult for me to do. But 

if you will yield unanimous consent to let me submit my entire testimony, I will get going quickly. 

Mr. SARBANES. Without objection. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling today’s hearing on the discussion draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 2010. In light of recent events that have occurred, it is very 

important that we use the opportunity today to review the way 

NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, operates 

but with the ultimate goal of keeping vehicular travel as safe as 

possible for drivers across the country. Mr. Chairman, while I believe it is important to review the actions and work of NHTSA, I 

think it is equally important that we do not move forward on legislation that would add mandates on the transportation industry or 

create more of a burden for the already struggling American taxpayer. So I certainly hope that we keep this in mind as we hear 

from our witnesses today and work to craft the proper legislation 

to reauthorize NHTSA, and I yield back. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Braley, do you want 

to enter something into the record? 

Mr. BRALEY. I just want to make a very brief comment. I am a 

firm believer in the power of symbolism, and as I was coming back 

from baseball practice this morning, Mr. Chairman, I saw a Ford 

Maverick with a Ron Paul sticker on it. It reminded me that the 

Maverick was the predecessor of the Fort Pinto, which was introduced in 1970, the same year that NHTSA was founded, and as we 

consider the important subject matter of this hearing and how we 

go about improving safety for all auto consumers and passengers 

and operators in this country, I think it is important to think back 

over the history of this agency and the important mission that it 

has, and that is why I will yield back the balance of my time and 

rush to the floor to vote. Thank you. 

Mr. SARBANES. We are going to adjourn the committee for the 

votes. When we come back, we will go straight to the first panel. 

We appreciate your patience. We are adjourned. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee is called back to order. The chair 

really wants to, first of all, extend my deepest and sincere apologies for the delay. It is just the way we have had to move today. 

I had a number of conflicting items on the agenda and we had to 

try to cover a lot of bases. And now the chair wants to recognize 

the esteemed administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, the Honorable David Strickland. Mr. Strickland, 

we really appreciate the fact that you have taken your time to be 

here and that you have been so patient with us. And you are recognized now for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

And before I do recognize you, Mr. Strickland, I would ask that you 

allow me to swear you in. That is the practice of the subcommittee. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record reflect that the witness has answered 

in the affirmative. And now you are recognized for 5 minutes. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
50 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this opportunity, Mr. Whitfield and other members of the committee. 

Again, the men and women of NHTSA thank you for the chance 

today to discuss the proposals to strengthen the authority of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I applaud the 

committee members and their staff for working so hard to understand these issues and for reflecting that understanding in the 

committee draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. Time has 

not permitted full review of all the draft legislation’s provisions 

throughout the executive branch, so my remarks will be confined 

to some of the major provisions. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to work together to improve 

the safety of our Nation’s roadways. We very much appreciate the 

provisions in the committee draft that would enhance NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority. NHTSA is a strong agency. The bill’s authorities would make us stronger. If enacted, these measures would 

significantly increase the agency’s leverage in dealing with manufacturers. The addition of imminent hazard authority would bring 

NHTSA’s authority into line with many of its other sister safety 

and health agencies. This provision gives NHTSA an important avenue through which to deliver on its consumer protection mission, 

a mission that I strongly believe in. 

As part of that safety mission, NHTSA collects a wealth of information in its various databases. We share in President Obama’s assessment that information maintained by the federal government is 

a national asset. This proposed bill would require NHTSA to improve the accessibility of the information on its publicly available 

databases. We will be very happy to do so in looking at several 

ideas on how to make our recall and our investigations data more 

user friendly. Even in the current state, NHTSA’s information 

stores are among the most outstanding consumer safety databases 

in government. Improving them would promote transparency. 

Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for 

citizens about what their government is doing. 

I will work with the Secretary and the Congress to strengthen 

and improve NHTSA so that it can continue to achieve its mission 

in saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing economic costs 

due to road traffic crashes. We will be accountable to the President, 

to Secretary LaHood, and to the American Public, for whom we at 

NHTSA proudly serve. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I look forward to answering the questions of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
51 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 58 here 76575A.037
52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 59 here 76575A.038
53 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 60 here 76575A.039
54 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 76575A.040
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 76575A.041
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 76575A.042
57 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the witness. Now the chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questioning of the witness. Mr. 

Strickland, I have a lot of respect for you. I know you, and I have 

known you and your family for quite some time and have nothing— 

I am very proud of what you have accomplished and am proud of 

the things that you have done in terms of your public service work. 

But I am a little disappointed, I must say, in your opening statement. I have to be very honest with you. This legislation—first of 

all, I know there is a process for developing testimony in the executive branch, and I am very cognizant of the fact that you only have 

a short turnaround time in terms of developing your testimony 

here. With that said, there is really a gaping hole that exists in 

your testimony in the complete lack of detail that I was expecting, 

and I know that you are capable of and I have seen you do this 

in the past. 

There is a lack of detail in your testimony that leaves us kind 

of wanting as a subcommittee. This legislation that is before us 

aims to overhaul your agency providing you with new enforcement 

authorities and additional resources. And we are glad to do this. 

We are proud to do this. We are giddy about doing this for NHTSA 

and giving it new authorities and resources. And it also mandates 

several new safety standards and creates new transparencies in 

auto safety. And I know you got more to say in regards to whether 

it is in this bill or not. What do you see as the most important new 

authority Congress could grant NHTSA that would strengthen the 

agency and improve auto safety? What is the most important new 

authority that you need? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Mr. Rush, I definitely do not want to disappoint you or the rest of the committee with the breadth of my 

statement. As you are aware, we at the Department of Transportation and also with the executive branch do have a process by 

which we evaluate both discussion and introduce legislation, and 

that is in process. I apologize profusely that we were not able to 

give you more granulated and detailed assessment of the work. 

That will be coming. I will be more than happy to provide that 

more detailed recitation when it has completed the review. I am 

happy to appear before the committee if that is your wish to do so 

at that time, but I will do my best to try to fill in some of the 

issues that you wish to discuss. 

The bill, to give an overview, anything that provides NHTSA the 

authority to be able to expedite the recall process, whether it is in 

negotiating with the manufacturers of trying to get them to issue 

a voluntary recall or an ability for the agency to be able to move 

forward in a fashion—to do so in a mandatory fashion such as with 

the imminent hazard authority. Those are the core, I think, of what 

we will want to achieve here at NHTSA, which is to be an agency 

that can take risks off the road as quickly as we can, and anything 

in this legislation that helps us achieve that is something that I believe that NHTSA would wholly embrace. There is lots of details 

in part of those new authorities and process that we stand at the 

ready to discuss. 

Anything that helps us achieve that goal, which is including the 

increase in penalty authority, I think the opportunity for us to really have a penalty that creates a real deterrent for manufacturers 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
58 

and equipment manufacturers as well to not violate the Act, I 

think helps in that leverage in the negotiation process and also 

helps those manufacturers make quicker decisions in terms of safety. 

Mr. RUSH. My time is running down, but the other question that 

I have, what is missing from this bill in your opinion? What is 

missing? What can we do additionally? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. In our evaluation, our preliminary evaluation 

and discussions with your staff and other staff members, this does 

capture the universe of what, I think, would be helpful to NHTSA. 

There are clearly other things that could be of assistance, but in 

terms of what we would anticipate as being helpful to strengthen 

the authority, the bill does give a fantastic foundation for the first 

steps in helping us be a stronger and more transparent agency. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair yields back the balance of his time. I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and, Mr. Strickland, for your testimony. I for one am pleased that you all are reviewing this legislation carefully because it would bring about significant changes, not only to NHTSA but certainly to a lot of manufacturers around the country, as well as to consumers, and I do 

think it is imperative that you all take the necessary time to look 

at this closely. You testified before our committee not too long ago, 

and if I were the administrator of a federal agency, I would be 

thrilled if some legislation came along giving me new authority, 

giving me new money, and so I can understand how you all would 

not be opposed to this legislation. But when you testified before— 

I mean the important thing is that you be able to do your job, 

which I think NHTSA is doing. 

But you testified before that you have engineers at NHTSA, you 

have electrical engineers at NHTSA, you have software engineers, 

you have engineers in East Liberty, Ohio. You can hire consultants 

for additional expertise, and you said there is not a notion that we 

don’t have the proper expertise to handle today’s automobiles. And 

then Mr. Dingell asked you a question, and I know that President 

Obama has given you additional money in his budget for this year, 

and you said when the President’s budget is passed, we will have 

the resources we need. 

And, you know, this is all we can expect from people who have 

the responsibility for these agencies in our government is to give 

us an honest, candid view of whether or not they have adequate 

resources. And you said very clearly that you had adequate resources, so many of us feel like this bill is too broad. But I want 

to ask you this question. The center that this bill establishes, the 

Center for Vehicle Electronics and Emerging Technologies, is there 

such a center similar to that at the Department of Transportation 

for railroads or for airlines or for any other type of transportation? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I am not familiar if there is a similar center 

that focuses on that particular area. I will have to get back to you 

on the record with some specificity. I may be incorrect on that, but 

from my recollection I don’t believe there is one. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Was your opinion solicited on whether or not 

this center should be placed in this legislation before the draft was 

written? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
59 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We were not asked in terms of to give a particular comment when the discussion draft was transmitted to the 

Department of Transportation. We put it in for internal review and 

also sent it over to the White House also for their review, so we 

have not issued an opinion about that particular concept at this 

time but when we have finished our review, we will definitely 

transmit that opinion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it sounds like you were not really involved 

in drafting this legislation in your agency and providing information to draft this legislation. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. No, sir. We were asked—we were consulted in 

terms of concepts but the actual technical assistance and drafting 

was handled by the committee staff. 

Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you. Would you make that review available 

to this committee as soon as you can, please? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. Absolutely, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I wish that they had talked to you in some detail 

before this legislation was written because it is your agency’s responsibility to carry out the role and the responsibility, and if there 

was any group that would have a clear understanding of this, it 

would be your agency. One other question I would just like to ask. 

Toyota was fined, I think, $16 million which I guess was the maximized—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. —fine that could be levied. How was it actually 

determined what that dollar value should be for that fine? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is actually a straight calculus of the actual violation times the number of cars that were in violation. If 

I am not mistaken, I believe that there was not a cap that limited 

us to $16.375 million. I believe the fine could have been well over 

$13 billion for the entire population of cars that were subject to the 

violation of the timeliness query. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. It could be how much? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. $13 billion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Billion? 

Mr. SRICKLAND. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You have that authority? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That would be the maximum per violation but 

we are limited to $16 million. I believe our recitation of breakdown 

of the possible maximum fine without the gap was included in our 

demand letter to Toyota. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus of 

the full committee who graciously relinquished his time for an 

opening statement to be used now during the time of questioning, 

so the chair recognizes the chairman emeritus for 10 minutes for 

the purpose of questioning the witness. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I 

commend you for the hearings. My questions, Mr. Administrator, 

will be answerable yes or no. The first question, Title I of the discussion draft under question mandates that DOT prescribe new 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
60 

federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars without 

any preliminary study by NHTSA or DOT or any of them. Is DOT 

or NHTSA sufficiently prepared to undertake such rulemakings for 

each of these proposals without any preliminary study of the need, 

practicality and appropriateness of each such rule for all manufacturers and their models, yes or no? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. NHTSA at this time is beginning its preliminary research—— 

Mr. DINGELL. No, no. I want a yes or no. I have limited time. Yes 

or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this particular time, Mr. Dingell, we are preparing to undertake possible rulemaking—— 

Mr. DINGELL. So you are not at this time prepared—you are not 

prepared to answer the question or you are not prepared to perform the rulemaking without the necessary study switch? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We have work underway for all of those things 

right now. 

Mr. DINGELL. I don’t want to filibuster. I just want a yes or no 

answer. I know that is going to be fairly easy once we get to working together. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this time, no, we would not be prepared to 

go to immediate rulemaking on those issues. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. It is really easier than we thought, 

isn’t it. My reading of Title I of the discussion draft shows that it 

does not amend the existing safety act of Title 49 of U.S. Code, and 

thus does not require any new federal motor vehicle safety standard to be prescribed in accordance with Section 3011 of the Safety 

Act. Do you agree? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. As drafted, that is correct. Yes, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Now, Mr. Strickland, further to my 

knowledge there is nothing in Title I of the discussion draft that 

would make these new standards subject to the provisions of the 

existing safety statute and thus enforceable. Is this observation correct, yes or no? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is a correct observation, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Administrator, as you know, the Safety 

Act generally applies to new motor vehicles because Title I of the 

discussion draft does not amend the Safety Act and thus is not subject to the Act’s definition. Is it conceivable that the term passenger 

vehicles as used in the discussion draft would include new cars and 

cars also that are already on the road, yes or no? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is not conceivable, sir. I believe it would only 

apply to new cars because the definition is cross applied throughout Title 49 but we will definitely be happy to give technical assistance to—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Is the answer yes or no? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Is it conceivable? No, it is not. It will only apply 

to new cars. 

Mr. DINGELL. It will not? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It will not be retroactive. 

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to have you submit further information as to why you make that statement. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
61 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. The rule proposes in Title I of the discussion draft 

each provide lead time requirements of one or two model years, and 

in one case 60 days after enactment for all makes and all models 

of passenger cars without any determination by the Secretary as to 

the reasonableness and practicability of those deadlines or applicable rule. Does DOT today know that such lead times are realistic 

and practical taking into consideration energy, needed technology, 

impacts on models, as well as costs of compliance? Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Past practice and rulemaking, those are very 

aggressive deadlines—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Just yes or no if you please. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. No, sir. I believe that those deadlines are impractical at this point. 

Mr. DINGELL. You believe what? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I believe that those deadlines are very tight 

and possibly impractical until we can actually work with the manufacturers in terms of meeting lead time needs. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. Now, 

Mr. Administrator, my understanding of the federal motor vehicle 

safety standards is that they are almost universally performance 

standards, yet only one proposal, Section 104 on electronic systems, 

calls for a performance standard while event data recorder and 

brake override proposals are quite prescriptive. Is DOT now ready 

to develop such prescriptive rules and know definitively that they 

will provide ‘‘motor vehicle safety’’ as the term is defined in the 

Safety Act? Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Research is under way. NHTSA is not prepared 

to do that at this time. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now, Mr. Administrator, with respect to Section 201, the discussion draft related to civil penalties, I note it 

contains no provision for judicial review or penalty assessment criteria such as the size of the business, economic impact, history, duration of the violation, seriousness, and willfulness. EPA must take 

into account these factors when assessing civil penalties under the 

Clean Air Act and under your administration or other provisions 

requiring similar actions. Should the Safety Act be amended to include possible judicial reviews of penalties and require DOT to take 

into account penalty assessment criteria such as EPA must? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. May I get back to you on the record for that 

specifically, Mr. Dingell? 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Administrator, the discussion draft strikes the 

maximum penalty for related series of violations. Do you believe 

that this is justified especially in view of the fact that the Safety 

Act contains no provision for judicial review of penalties or requires 

the Secretary to take into account any penalty assessment criteria? 

Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. There are factors that we currently consider for 

the evaluation of a penalty right now for current authorities. That 

would cross apply to this situation so as drafted the NHTSA would 

take those under consideration—— 

Mr. DINGELL. How could you do it if you are not required by law? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
62 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is by our current administration practice in 

assessing penalties. 

Mr. DINGELL. That is just policy which would change with the 

wind. Mr. Administrator, Section 202 of the discussion draft allows 

the Secretary to issue an imminent hazard order against vehicle 

manufacturers. Does DOT have a definition for the term ‘‘imminent 

hazard’’ either in the regulation or the statute? If you have such, 

will you submit it for the record? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir, I will. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Administrator, likewise, Section 202 permits the Secretary to issue such imminent hazard orders absent 

prior judicial review and consent. Should DOT have to show by suit 

in federal court that hazard is imminent just as EPA must do 

under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act and CPSC must do under 

Section 11 of the Consumer Product Safety Act as opposed to forcing the aggrieved person to seek judicial review at the Circuit 

Court level where there is no trial of facts? Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to get back to you for the record 

on that, Mr. Dingell, but to let you know that our sister model 

agencies such as the Federal Rail Administration and others have 

similar imminent hazard authority as seen in the committee draft. 

Mr. DINGELL. This is not, remember, Mr. Administrator, tied to 

the Automotive Safety Act nor to the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Now Section 301 of the discussion draft requires DOT to conduct 

rulemaking on disclosure of information about vehicle defects, repairs, et cetera, with a presumption favoring maximum public disclosure. Given that DOT has existing regulations on public disclosure and must comply with the Freedom of Information Act, is such 

a disclosure rulemaking as the discussion draft mandates? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to get back to you on the record 

with that, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Administrator, Section 401 of the discussion 

draft requires vehicle manufacturers to pay an annual fee on a per 

vehicle basis. Such fees shall be used according to the discussion 

draft to meet the obligations of the United States to carry out the 

vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Administration. To the best of my knowledge, these obligations are not defined in the discussion draft. Do you agree? Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. The obligations are not defined. We will be 

happy to get back for the record on the question. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Administrator, the discussion draft sets 

out per vehicle fees to meet NHTSA’s obligations. Absent a clear 

definition of these obligations, do you believe that the level of these 

fees as defined in the discussion draft are arbitrary? Yes or no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will have to get back for the record, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Administrator, similarly, is DOT in possession 

of any information that would verify the level of these fees is appropriate to meet its obligations, whatever they might be? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will respond to you for the record, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. You don’t know? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
63 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point, we have the 2011 budget that the 

President has issued to the Congress—— 

Mr. DINGELL. The answer is though, Mr. Secretary, you don’t 

know—or, rather, Mr. Administrator, you don’t know? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point, sir, we have allocated our budget 

for the 2011 budget. The levels that are produced in this bill, we 

are happy to review. 

Mr. DINGELL. The question is you still don’t know. Mr. Chairman, you have been most gracious on your gift of time to me. I express to you my thanks and also to my good friend from Kentucky 

my gratitude for this kindness in yielding to me earlier. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the chairman emeritus. And now the 

chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for your testimony today. I want to shift gears and talk a 

little bit about the testing center in East Liberty, Ohio that 

NHTSA has. And there is no suggestion in this bill that that facility be abandoned, but there have been some suggestions externally 

about the prospect of moving it. And the impetus behind those suggestions has been that because the facility is technically owned by 

Honda of America Manufacturing Corporation that that would represent some kind of a conflict of interest. I guess my question to 

you is are you familiar with the facility I am talking about? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I am very familiar with the facility. 

Mr. SPACE. And you are familiar with the fact that the facility 

itself that is owned by Honda is actually operated pursuant to a 

management agreement by a not-for-profit corporation that was 

founded by Ohio State University? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is correct. 

Mr. SPACE. And in your experience have you in the past been 

alerted to any problems associated with the ownership specifically 

that may have arisen as the result of a conflict of interest? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Space, my job before I was sworn in as administrator of NHTSA, I was an oversight counsel and part of my 

duty was oversight of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for over 8 years. I was very familiar with the ownership structure of the VRTC with TRC in Ohio State. I never had any knowledge of any conflict of interest during my time as a staffer. I took 

a look at this issue very specifically when this was brought to my 

attention. I have seen no indication whatsoever of there being an 

improper relationship. It is a firewall relationship between TRC, 

the Ohio State University for whom we pay, and Honda of America, 

which actually owns the land. 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Are you aware of any 

other manufacturers apart from Honda that may have registered 

complaints about the ownership structure of the facility? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. There have been no complaints from any manufacturer. 

Mr. SPACE. And, finally, has the weather been a problem, the 

Ohio weather been a problem. I know we don’t have the claim to 

snow apocalypse, but I am curious as to whether that has been a 

problem for the facility. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
64 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Our staffs have been able to use the pad and 

the other facilities. That has never been an impediment to our 

work in terms of the availability of the actual test track itself or 

the buildings that we use. 

Mr. SPACE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strickland, thank 

you for joining us again. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. And I want to start with a follow-up question to Mr. 

Dingell’s question to you about the scope of administrative judicial 

review. And I want to make sure that I understood your response 

as it relates to NHTSA because my understanding is that as a general rule any federal agency that falls within the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, in order to overturn the action of the agency 

you have to demonstrate in that judicial review process that the action of the agency was arbitrary and capricious. That is the baseline definition of judicial review for any federal agency action. Is 

that your understanding? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is correct, Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. But that Congress may, if it chooses to, also include 

in the organic law that gives rise to that agency action more limitations on judicial review if it chooses to do so? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, Mr. Braley, that is correct. 

Mr. BRALEY. So the mere fact that there is not specific language 

giving further direction on what should be considered as part of 

that judicial review of NHTSA’s act does not mean that there is not 

a formal process for judicial review subject to the baseline arbitrary 

and capricious standard? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Braley, you are correct in that analysis. 

Mr. BRALEY. All right. Now one of the concerns that I had and 

many people had during the period of the Bush Administration and 

its operation of NHTSA was that the agency during that period, 

specifically from 2005 to 2008, seemed to many of us to usurp its 

own regulatory authority and take on the role of Congress by including in many of its preambles issued in response to regulations 

language pre-empting state law claims. Are you familiar with that 

practice? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. BRALEY. And I know that the President himself at the beginning of his Administration took a strong position rolling back some 

of those statements made by agency representatives in those preambles and in the regulations themselves. Are you able here today 

as a representative of the Administration in your capacity able to 

assure us that those practices will not continue while you are Administrator? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I can make that obligation, absolutely. There is 

a notion that states’ rights are incredibly important and those preambles that were placed not only in NHTSA’s rules but there were 

several rules throughout executive branch agencies and safety 

agencies which undermine safety, and I know the Obama Administration felt very strongly that those should not be used to undercut 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
65 

the notion of safety whether by the federal government or in the 

states. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. One of the things that this Motor Vehicle Safety Act calls on your agency to do is to improve public accessibility of information posted to its web site, and that includes a 

requirement that you make sure that all data is searchable and 

can be aggregated and downloaded. As it exists now, does NHTSA 

have the capability to ensure that this information is posted in an 

easily accessible and searchable fashion that any member of the 

general public can use? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point we—I have sort of two things to 

say about that, Mr. Braley. Even in the current state of NHTSA’s 

database, it is clearly one of the most usable and transparent databases in government. We found that consumers and the press and 

members of Congress to be able to go through all work, been able 

to analyze it independently of what we have done, so I think that 

speaks to the level of transparency. So we do recognize that it 

could be more user friendly and more accessible, and we have efforts underway right now to deal with some of those issues including creating a VIN-based identifier system to ensure uniformity in 

usage of vehicle configuration details. The vehicle owners questionnaire, the VOQ, is very difficult. I know our goal is to make sure 

that we can make it simpler and that drivers and consumers use 

less time in filling out the VOQs so that we can get more information from more consumers. 

We have a significant abandonment rate. We get over 30,000 

complaints a year, but there is a lot of people that begin the process that give up because it is such a difficult form to fill out. We 

need to be better. There are lots of other things that we are currently undertaking. I know the draft legislation makes mandates 

and suggestions for us to undertake that opportunity. We will continue our own work independent of legislation. If this legislation 

becomes law, we will happily work on making the database more 

consumer friendly and more usable. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, I am very glad to hear that. I am shuttling 

back and forth between two hearings, one on transparency in pricing in health care, and this hearing, which also has placed a huge 

emphasis on transparency, and transparency is great, but unless 

you are communicating with your intended users in language they 

can understand all that you do is create more frustration and you 

keep people from getting access to the information they need to 

rely upon to make informed decisions. That is why I am proud in 

both the 110th and 111th Congress we in the House have passed 

my Plain Language in Government Communications Act requiring 

all federal agencies to communicate in their publications and their 

web-based services with constituents in the language that they can 

understand, and I would be happy to work with you and your agency as they try to adopt some of those best practices. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Braley, that will be a great opportunity for 

us, and also I would like to take this opportunity to promote the 

new NHTSA web site at nhtsa.gov. We have simplified the web 

site, made it much more user friendly, and I would hope that you 

and the other members of the staff would take an opportunity to 

go on nhtsa.gov and to please give comments on what we have 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
66 

done. We are very proud of the work in terms of making it better 

for the American consumer. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strickland, when a 

consumer buys a car and it has an EDR in it should the consumer 

or the owner of that vehicle have access to that information? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point, we are reviewing several issues 

about EDRs and we will have to get back to you on the record, Mr. 

Stupak, but in terms of the privacy issues there are several considerations that should be undertaken and NHTSA and the Administration are looking at those things very closely. 

Mr. STUPAK. Was there anything like proprietary information 

that would be revealed if the consumer had an opportunity to look 

at what was happening with their vehicle at the time? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I wouldn’t be familiar in terms of the accessibility of a consumer and what data may be—what may be considered proprietary. At this point right now, EDRs only track acceleration and braking. I know that there are other considerations in the 

discussion draft which may include more information on the EDRs. 

I will have to get back to you on the record for that consideration 

as well. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Could you cite any provisions of the discussion 

draft that protect either proprietary information, trade secrets or 

data which is important to the company as a competitive matter? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. There is no language in the draft that does any 

of that, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. STUPAK. If you go these EDRs, what is the difference if I 

turn on my Sirius radio and I listen to certain music, and that is 

mine, right? I can put in any station I want on my Sirius radio and 

listen to it, so my EDR, if I want to know how fast I was going 

or accelerating or things like that, why wouldn’t I be entitled to 

that information being the consumer, the owner of the vehicle, if 

you will? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. The owner of the vehicle should have access to 

all aspects of the vehicle in terms of information provided. I think 

that in terms of transparency and clarity, I think that for a consumer to have that ability to access actually the consumer does 

have the right to access that information. They may not have the 

tools to get the information, but I believe the consumer always has 

that right at this point if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. STUPAK. So if there is an accident like sudden unintended 

acceleration, what right does Toyota have to come in and remove 

that information or withhold that information from a consumer? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, in terms with how that interplays, I know 

the manufacturer has access to data. I know that NHTSA has the 

ability to access the data once we get an OK from the consumer. 

But in terms of preventing a consumer from getting the data him 

or herself or Toyota preventing or any manufacturer limiting access 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
67 

to that data, I am not as familiar with that process so I will have 

to get back to you on the record. 

Mr. STUPAK. Have you demanded the information from these recorders on the accidents of a sudden unintended acceleration from 

Toyota? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, we have. 

Mr. STUPAK. Have you received it? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, we have received it and actually in addition to getting that information Toyota has also provided several 

readers. One of the issues that we are facing, Mr. Stupak, and I 

believe those were explained to you in the hearing that you held 

a few weeks back, that there was an issue where NHTSA did not 

have the ability to independently read a Toyota EDR. Toyota has 

since supplied us several of their readers so that we can access the 

data on site, and they have been much more proactive in that area. 

Mr. STUPAK. Have you shared this information with the victims’ 

families of these sudden unintended acceleration of these vehicles? 

I am thinking especially of the one up in New York, the case up 

in New York. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. The Harrison, New York case, sir? 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point right now, my understanding is 

that we have that data. We are analyzing it for our own investigations. I don’t know if there has been a request made to NHSTA to 

release that information. I will get back to you, sir. I will ask the 

question of the staff. 

Mr. STUPAK. All right. These new EDR standards, do you believe 

they are sufficient in the proposed bill Section 107? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We are actually taking our own independent research on EDR systems, sir. The staff will be producing a white 

paper that hopefully should be available by June of this year, 

which will take a look at several issues regarding the sufficiency 

of the data, the robustness of the EDR, and several other considerations, and we will be happy to share that with you and the rest 

of the members of the committee, but at this time we are not prepared to make an evaluation of the discussion draft mandates regarding—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Will you be looking at what other data may be useful to you like torquing and arcing on braking in vehicles on the 

roadway? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is a comprehensive review and this white 

paper will take those other considerations into account. 

Mr. STUPAK. So on the Toyota, how many pieces of data do you 

receive? You said two, speed and—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Speed and braking is whether the acceleration 

was depressed and when the brake was depressed, that is correct. 

There is other information available in the vehicle as well, Mr. Stupak. The electronic control mechanism, ECM, which is independent 

of the EDR, which can also be a very rich trove of information 

which Toyota has shared with us as well, but the actual EDR itself, 

it is only braking and acceleration. 

Mr. STUPAK. Doesn’t that seem inadequate? I mean these standards were put out some time ago. There were more than just two 

standards in the proposed EDRs that we wanted. What, 2013 they 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
68 

were supposed to take effect or, I am sorry, 2011 and it was pushed 

back to 2013, is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Actually I think 2012 is actually when the voluntary—if you do have an EDR you have certain, you know, certain 

information you have to provide and make sure that NHSTA 

makes it readable. 

Mr. STUPAK. But in that 2012 reader it had to be more than just 

speed and braking? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. So we should make sure that there are more aspects 

that would be helpful to you and to the consumer in these EDRs? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We are looking forward to working with you 

and the rest of the committee on this issue, Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. That concludes the testimony of the Administrator. 

The ranking member has requested some additional time so if the 

Administrator would agree, we will have a second round of questioning for 1 minute, and the ranking member is recognized for 1 

minute for an additional question. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Strickland, would you please tell us when 

you expect you would be able to give us a section by section analysis of this bill? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point, I know it is currently in process 

within the department and with the Administration. My expectation is that hopefully—I will be away on travel, I would hope that 

I would a more specific time frame and answer when I return from 

Asia, so I will be more than happy to communicate when we expect 

to have that review to you, but at this time I don’t have a specific 

date when we will have the review done. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I urge you all to speed it up and provide 

us with it as soon as possible. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Understood, Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. One other question. I know that you can evaluate each rulemaking and calculate the cost of that rulemaking or 

that estimated cost and lives saved. Would you be able to do that 

with this legislation? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. In terms of doing our normal cost benefit analysis of the rule, one thing that we would have to make sure that 

we go through regular order and process in any of these 

rulemakings and find the proper amount of time to execute all of 

the things we need to do for a rule, we are evaluating the time 

frames that are present in the discussion draft along with our current rulemaking load. We have other rulemakings that are in the 

queue from other pieces of legislation and work we already have 

done independently so, yes, we will need to be able to do that work 

in order for us to justify the rule and we will definitely do so in 

that fashion. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Are there any other—Mr. Space, do you have any additional questions? Mr. Braley, do you have—that concludes your 

time. You have been most gracious with your time. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Rush, it is my pleasure and the men and 

women in NHTSA really do thank you for this effort. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
69 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you so much. And the chair now will ask the 

second panel please be seated at the table. The chair wants to 

thank each and every one of you for your gracious sacrifice of your 

time. You have been very patient with us, and the chair wants to 

recognize you and thank you for it. I want to introduce the panel 

right now. Beginning from my left, a former member of the House 

of Representatives the esteemed Honorable David McCurdy, who 

now serves as the President and CEO for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. David, it is good to see you, and welcome 

back to the subcommittee. Next to Mr. McCurdy is Mr. Michael J. 

Stanton. He is the President and CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Welcome, Mr. Stanton. Seated 

next to Mr. Stanton is our friend who was here before this subcommittee on many occasions, the Honorable Joan Claybrook. She 

is the former administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Welcome back, Ms. Claybrook. And then seated 

next to Ms. Claybrook is Mr. Clarence Ditlow. He is the Executive 

Director of the Center for Auto Safety. And seated next to Mr. 

Ditlow is Mr. Jim Harper. He is the Director of Information Policy 

Studies for the Cato Institute. Again, welcome to each and every 

one of you. And it is the practice of this subcommittee to swear in 

the witnesses. Will you please rise and raise your right hand? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Please let the record reflect that the witnesses have 

all responded in the affirmative. And now we will recognize Mr. 

McCurdy for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVE MCCURDY, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; 

MICHAEL J. STANTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION 

OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; THE 

HONORABLE JOAN CLAYBROOK, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; 

CLARENCE DITLOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

AUTO SAFETY; AND JIM HARPER, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE 

TESTIMONY OF DAVE MCCURDY 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me back 

to discuss this draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. In the 

interest of time, I am going to request my full statement be admitted in the record, and I am going to briefly go through some highlights, if I may. And since this is a discussion draft, I hope that 

this can also be a frank discussion because I think we need to get 

to the root of some of these issues. There has been a lot of discussion on auto recalls in recent months, so let me start by reassuring 

the American consumer that we are in a historic period of auto 

safety in the U.S., and I think Mr. Whitfield mentioned some of the 

statistics about the declining rate of traffic fatalities and that our 

roads are safer today, lowest level since 1949. 

Consumers are benefitting from many innovative life-saving technologies that assist the driver, including the electronic stability 

control, lane department warning system, blind spot monitors, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
70 

adaptive cruise control. We also, if you look at safety in another 

way, today we see more frequent recalls but fewer vehicles are recalled compared to a decade ago. That fact suggests that both 

NHTSA and automakers are effectively spotting early warning 

signs and taking faster action. If Congress wants to reassure consumers quickly about auto safety, lawmakers should focus on three 

or four of these measures that enhance safety the most, and if I 

may, I will make some recommendations. 

First, the Alliance supports a vehicle brake override standard 

that will ensure consumers that they can count on their automobiles. Brake override technology is a comprehensive solution to 

unintended acceleration whether it is caused by faulty electronics 

or pedal getting caught in a floor mat. Therefore, a pedal placement rulemaking, however, would not provide additional safety 

benefits so brake override, yes, pedal safety, redundant. The Alliance supports the intent of the keyless ignition system standard to 

ensure a consistent means of shutting off an engine during an 

emergency. However, brake override is a preferable solution to unintended acceleration. If rulemaking is necessary, it should focus 

on standardizing engine shut off procedures and not on design features like the appearance or location of the button. 

The Alliance supports requiring event data recorders in new vehicles, but we are concerned about provisions that suggest they 

should be like black boxes in airplanes. The typical airplane black 

box costs roughly $22,000, which is close to the average price of a 

new car. In my opinion, Representative Green’s legislation, H.R. 

5169, a member of this subcommittee, is a better approach. A proposed transmission configuration standard is not necessary because 

such a standard already exists, FMVSS No. 102. The Alliance 

urges Congress to adopt legislation that enhances our knowledge 

and expertise. We support a center for vehicle electronics and 

emerging technologies with NHTSA. Even in this partisan environment, this is something we can all agree on. 

We urge Congress to fund the National Automobile Sampling 

System or NASS, which has shrunk to a third of its intended size, 

important data collection. We also urge Congress to fund the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety or DADSS to help identify 

vehicle technologies that can stop drunks from turning on a car 

and hopefully saving many thousands of lives each year. There are 

always trade-offs and competing demands when you are writing 

legislation. Congress will need to balance some of the proposals 

with consumer concerns and marketplace concerns. For example, 

Congress will need to balance the desire for more data with privacy 

protection for consumers. NHTSA spent many years assessing the 

data to be collected by EDRs and we are in the middle of a phasein period for that standard, so we need time to assess the impact 

of the first rule before we start writing the next rule. 

Congress must also balance the desire for public information 

with valuable product information. The purpose of early warning 

data is to enable NHTSA to identify trends and take action sooner, 

not to create an eBay or Amazon.com where competitors can surf 

for company trade secrets or lawyers can shop for clients. Citizens 

are better served when safety legislation empowers engineers, not 

trial lawyers. Congress will need to avoid the possibility of creating 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
71 

a system of regulation by litigation. Congress should not enact 

measures that will have the unintended effect of slowing and not 

accelerating action on safety matters. If every petition denial is 

subject to judicial review, NHTSA will be forced to spend substantial resources and time responding to every petition regardless of 

its merit in anticipation of judicial review. This will not serve the 

agency, the industry or the public well. 

Finally, Congress will need to preserve basic fairness and due 

process under the law. The Alliance does not oppose an increase in 

civil penalties but penalties must be capped at some reasonable 

level. The proposed 5-fold increase is surprising since 2 years ago 

this committee set a cap at $15 million per offense on penalties 

that could be assessed to manufacturers of other types of consumer 

products. Regarding granting NHTSA imminent hazard authority, 

all I can say is, Mr. Chairman, the proposed provisions need further work. They are so lacking in standards, and the opportunity 

to be heard before a neutral decision maker as in our opinion to 

violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

Furthermore, if Congress in my experience has a stick it will always want a club. Regarding corporate responsibility for NHTSA 

reports, the proposed personal liability for auto executives would be 

$250 million. That is 50 times higher than for executives under 

Sarbanes-Oxley, which resulted from the Enron scandal where executives went to prison. In closing, I know the challenge of getting 

a consensus. I have chaired several subcommittees and a full committee. This bill can be made stronger by focusing on what is most 

important, and we look forward to working with you to identify the 

key provisions that will actually improve safety and benefit consumers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCurdy follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
72 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 80 here 76575A.043
73 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 81 here 76575A.044
74 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 82 here 76575A.045
75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 83 here 76575A.046
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 84 here 76575A.047
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 85 here 76575A.048
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 86 here 76575A.049
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 87 here 76575A.050
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 88 here 76575A.051
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 89 here 76575A.052
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 90 here 76575A.053
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 91 here 76575A.054
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 92 here 76575A.055
85 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 93 here 76575A.056
86 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 94 here 76575A.057
87 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 95 here 76575A.058
88 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Mr. 

Stanton for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. STANTON 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Whitfield. I am Mike Stanton, President and CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. AIAM and its 

member companies appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts to improve motor vehicle safety and understand the intended benefits of 

the bill. We also fully support the subcommittee’s proposal to provide additional engineering and related resources to NHSTA including improving the agency’s vehicle safety database to provide 

greater public accessibility. However, AIAM believes that NHTSA 

must be given the necessary time and flexibility in its rulemakings 

so it can make good decisions. Similarly, manufacturers require 

sufficient lead time to engineer tests and produce v vehicles that 

will meet the new standards. 

We are concerned that the rulemaking mandates in the draft bill 

pre-determine conclusions as to matters currently under the investigation and not yet fully analyzed by NHTSA. As a general matter, it would be more appropriate to direct NHTSA to complete its 

investigations as soon as possible and issue rules based upon a full 

and comprehensive analysis of these important safety issues. Regarding the nine mandated rulemakings in the draft, we defer to 

NHTSA’s judgment as to the feasibility of the deadlines for issuing 

the numerous final rules as specified in the bill. However, we note 

that the deadline for many rulemaking mandates appear to be unreasonably short and provide insufficient lead time. 

Short deadlines can adversely affect the quality of the final rule 

and prior to issuance of a final rule, NHTSA often finds it necessary to conduct research to address issues that first arise during 

the rulemaking process. From our perspective, if the short deadlines adversely affect the quality of the final rules, we all lose. 

With regard to the effective date specified in the bill, we note that 

while some of our members already equip their vehicles with several technologies contemplated by this legislation, for example, 

brake override and EDRs, others do not. For those manufacturers 

who do not currently employ these technologies, especially some of 

the small volume manufacturers the effective dates specified in the 

bill are simply not feasible. 

Even those companies that currently have these technologies also 

need sufficient lead time because there are no assurances that 

these current technologies will be consistent with the mandates in 

the final rule. In addition, the draft bill does not provide for the 

new requirements to be phased in nor does it provide for phase-in 

incentive to promote early deployment where feasible. It is generally more efficient for manufacturers to implement new technologies at the time of model changes so that the new items can 

be better integrated than would be the case with the purely addon approach. 

With respect to the proposed corporate responsibility requirement in Section 305, we have concerns that this requirement could 

significantly chill the speed of the safety investigation practices 

used by some AIAM members and introduce non-safety experts into 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
89 

the process. The current practice used by some AIAM members 

separate safety-related decisions from financial considerations and 

intentionally excludes these executives. We are concerned that the 

proposal might have the unintended consequence of introducing financial considerations inherent when highest ranking executives 

are involved into that safety decision making process. We also note 

that under existing law manufacturers are already legally responsible and accountable for submitting accurate information to 

NHTSA. Providing false or misleading statements to the federal 

government is strictly prohibited. 

AIAM does not believe that requiring a senior official to certify 

responses to safety investigations and other submissions to NHTSA 

is necessary or practicable. However, if the committee insists on 

some sort of senior officer certification consideration should be 

given to limiting the scope of the certification to formal responses 

to NHTSA’s defect determinations. Additional considerations 

should be given to allowing the corporate officers specifically 

charged with safety matters to certify submissions. Mr. Chairman, 

my written testimony provides AIAM comments on most of the sections of the bill. I would be more than happy to answer questions 

at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
90 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 98 here 76575A.059
91 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 99 here 76575A.060
92 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 100 here 76575A.061
93 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 101 here 76575A.062
94 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 102 here 76575A.063
95 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 103 here 76575A.064
96 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 104 here 76575A.065
97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 105 here 76575A.066
98 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes the Honorable Joan Claybrook. 

Ms. Claybrook, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOAN CLAYBROOK 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush, and thank 

you for your work on this bill. I am Joan Claybrook, and I am 

President Emeritus of Public Citizen, and a former Administrator 

of NHTSA. And since I left office in 1981, a million people have 

died in auto crashes and many, many more have suffered horrible 

injuries, many millions more, and a cost to the nation of about $6 

trillion. So this is a huge issue. In the last 18 months, we have 

seen some huge regulatory failures in this country, whether it has 

been in the massive failure of regulation in the financial sector, 

whether it has been in the case of the Toyota Motor Company, 

whether it has been in the case of the 29 miners who have died 

because of violations in the mining industry, whether it has been 

because of the horrific oil leak explosion and the lack of regulation 

there, and the cost to the nation to individual families, to small 

businesses, have been unending and will continue for many years 

to come for all of these families that have been involved. 

I say these because of these regulatory failures, this corporate 

malfeasance, this attitude of profits before safety and extraordinary 

loss of life in auto crashes set the back drop, it seems to me, for 

the discussion about the need for this bill. With strong regulation 

and enforcement regulated companies take fewer risks with the 

public safety environment and money, and I strongly endorse your 

bill because I think that it will help to deal and address some of 

these issues. I do ask that my entire statement be included for the 

record, but I will summarize our particular concerns. 

First, I would like to mention in Section 107 the event data recorders, which we believe need to be vastly improved from those 

now in practice, and there needs particularly to be a single uniform 

access tool for downloading them. Even, you know, there is an 

issue whether the location should be recorded. If you call 911 on 

your cell phone, they have your location, so I don’t see why that 

is an exception. And I believe that there needs to be an automatic 

transmission of the data that is collected in the EDR to a NHTSA 

database with privacy protections obviously taken into account. 

NHTSA has been excellent at having privacy protections for all the 

data that is ever used. This feature is important for the essential 

NHTSA data gathering which is expensive and totally inadequate 

to date. The industry and we agree completely on improving the 

NASS system but NHTSA needs real time access to on the road information to conduct its research, rulemaking and enforcement. 

It needs robust and statistically valuable data and this can be accomplished as a part of the new EDR requirements. As to enforcement authority, I strongly support the new penalty provisions and 

the imminent hazard authority, but I urge the inclusion of criminal 

penalties in this legislation. I know there has been some objection 

and resistance to having criminal penalties, but I would just like 

to point out that statutes covering motor carriers, hazardous materials, aircraft, oil pipeline, waterfront safety, railroad safety, clean 

water, food, drugs, cosmetics, solid waste, clean air, mine safety, 

occupational safety and health, consumer product safety and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:09 Jan 19, 2013 Jkt 076575 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A575.XXX A575

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
99 

sumer product hazardous substances, securities, antitrust and vehicular homicide all have criminal provisions in them, and I don’t 

understand why anyone suggests that NHTSA should not as well. 

These prosecutions would have to go through the Justice Department, which has a very high standard for intent and there would 

have to be knowing and willful, so I think it ought to be included 

in this legislation. We support the transparency provisions in the 

legislation because the encourage and assist the public in reporting 

safety problems, and we support the judicial review for a public petition for recall. The industry talks about wanting due process for 

itself. We want due process for consumers. Without the opportunity 

for oversight, the agency can ignore its obligations and it indeed 

has in the past. It is unlikely that this provision would be used 

often because it is expensive to bring such suits, but it is important. 

And I do endorse adjustments to this section in addition clarifying that lawsuits—in the transparency section that lawsuits 

should be separately reported from vague claims of letters under 

early warning, that categories of defective elements of a vehicle 

should be vastly enlarged so the public knows what we are talking 

about, that we should make public reports that manufacturers 

have of deaths under early warning, and that collecting the names 

and addresses of after market tire purchasers should be included 

that they can be notified about recalls which they cannot be now, 

and to require NHTSA to fully document meetings with interested 

parties when they have them, which they haven’t been doing. As 

to funding, we think the agency is starving to death. The whole 

budget is $132 million. It needs to be vastly increased, and it 

should be $500 million a year, and so we hope that that will happen under your jurisdiction. 

And, finally, I do have in my statement, I won’t mention them 

specifically, but I think there are three things that are included for 

the integrity of the agency, and that is not having a facility that 

is owned by an auto manufacturer having whistleblower protection 

and having revolving door protection. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
100 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 109 here 76575A.067
101 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 110 here 76575A.068
102 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 111 here 76575A.069
103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 112 here 76575A.070
104 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 113 here 76575A.071
105 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 114 here 76575A.072
106 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 115 here 76575A.073
107 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 116 here 76575A.074
108 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 117 here 76575A.075
109 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 118 here 76575A.076
110 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 119 here 76575A.077
111 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Mr. 

Ditlow for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE DITLOW 

Mr. DITLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. I am Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director of the Center 

for Auto Safety, a small group that has watch dogged the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration for 40 years now. We deeply 

appreciate the effort that went into drafting the proposed Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 and both consumers and auto companies 

alike will benefit from fundamental reforms to the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Indeed, when you look at NHTSA it 

is a wonderful agency. It has a vital mission but it is woefully underfunded, woefully understaffed, and outgunned by the industry it 

regulates. To expect today’s NHTSA to adequately regulate the trillion dollar auto industry is like asking a high school basketball 

team to beat the LA Lakers. 

Unlike other public health and safety agencies NHTSA doesn’t 

even have its own research facility. Instead, it must rent space at 

a facility owned by Honda. Now when we go back and look at the 

original agency, it was much better equipped to handle regulating 

the auto industry than today’s agency. Today, there are twice as 

many vehicles. There are twice as many vehicle manufacturers. 

And the motor vehicles themselves are probably four times as complex as the motor vehicles that were on the roads in the 1960s and 

1970s when the agency was formed. 

The original agency had a research program that did things like 

research on advanced air bags, a research safety vehicle. It did 

more research on electronic controls in vehicles in the ’70s than it 

did in the ’80s or ’90s. That budget, those resources, they led to advanced safety standards like the air bag standard. The auto industry went from a company that couldn’t dislike air bags more than— 

an industry that today they want to sell as many cars as they can 

with air bags and use those air bags to promote the sale of motor 

vehicles. It is an example safety does sell. What has happened 

though is that the safety system at the agency has significantly 

broken down, if we look just at the defects and recalls division, it 

used to be that the whole process was open. You could go in and 

look at citizen complaints. You could go in and look at warranty 

data. You could look at the files and rebut what the manufacturers 

were saying. Recalls and investigations took place in a much shorter period of time. 

We had the General Motors sudden acceleration problem due to 

failing engine mounts. From the time the investigation was open 

to 6.7 million vehicles were recalled was less than a year. GM 

didn’t suffer in sales like Toyota did. And today what we have is 

investigations that go forward go on forever almost, and we have 

multiple recalls. The consumer is dismayed, the manufacturer loses 

sales. And when we look at the early warning system, the early 

warning system has actually made the investigatory process worse. 

Things that used to be public are not public anymore. You can’t tell 

how many deaths and injuries that there are on Toyotas. There 

were 301 death and injury summary reports filed to NHTSA but 

only 15 were requested. All death reports should be made public. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
112 

I have concentrated primarily on some of the openness and 

transparency. I want to say to Mr. McCurdy in the history of the 

agency we have 23 years when there was judicial review of agency 

decisions on defects, and in 23 years there were only two court 

challenges, scarcely a burden, and what you will find is a check 

and balance that is needed. When we go forward with rulemakings 

under this, we are going to have a situation where we are correcting the catch-up. The agency is behind. The agency needs more 

research, more funds. Just looking at the accident investigations 

alone, there is only $15 million. We need $60 million for accident 

investigations in this country, and they can catch defects like Toyota. 

So when I look forward to the future, this legislation provides a 

unique opportunity to not only reduce the unacceptable tolls of 

deaths and injuries on the nation roads but also to provide stability 

to the auto industry which suffers from lack of public confidence 

and sales when preventable defects such as Toyota’s sudden acceleration occur. The federal government through NHTSA should lead 

the way to vehicle safety, not come on after the fact and try to 

clean up on this. So I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ditlow follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
113 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 122 here 76575A.078
114 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 123 here 76575A.079
115 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 124 here 76575A.080
116 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 125 here 76575A.081
117 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 126 here 76575A.082
118 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 127 here 76575A.083
119 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM HARPER 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield, and members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here. 

My name is Jim Harper. I am Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. I am delighted for the opportunity to testify about the Motor Vehicle Safety Act draft, and particularly Section 107. Until a decade ago when I left the Hill, I was a Judiciary 

Committee guy. I hope you won’t hold that against me. I do believe 

maybe the substance of my testimony will be what you hold against 

me. Before I turn—— 

Mr. RUSH. We will try not to hold that against you. 

Mr. HARPER. I appreciate that. Before we turn to the privacy 

issues at play with EDRs, I will make two observations that are 

really straight out of the skunk at the garden party file. Across the 

country today, Americans are re-reading the Constitution and they 

are trying to square what it says with the activities of Congress. 

I fully acknowledge the good intentions, of course, of everybody involved in auto safety issues, but I have a hard time finding that 

to be a federal government responsibility. The Constitution’s grant 

of authority in the commerce clause was aimed at making commerce among states regular, ending the trade wars that had broken out among the states in the Articles of Confederation. 

Framers did not intend for the Congress to regulate the quality 

and caliber of goods and services traded in the United States. My 

quick study, necessarily quick study, of the economics of Section 

107 dealing with EDRs draws me to doubt whether installing event 

data recorders in all cars sold in the United States is a cost effective auto safety measure. Driving the cost of new cars higher raises 

the cost of used cars because it limits the market of used cars as 

people don’t trade up. Under the, I think, entirely plausible assumption that newer cars are safer than older ones raising the 

prices of cars with EDR technology keeps poorer people in older, 

less safe cars. Now, of course, that is not to say that analyzing data 

is a mistake. Good data will improve auto safety but almost certainly sampling auto crash data using EDRs in a cross section of 

cars would provide safety benefits without the cost of mandating 

EDRs for all cars sold in the United States. 

My analysis of the economics is worth the money you are paying 

for it, of course, but I want to highlight that there are trade-offs 

here and it would be regrettable if large societal investments in 

EDRs and EDR data drove up costs and kept the company’s poorer 

drivers from trading up endangering their lives for the benefit of 

the wealthy drivers who buy new cars. I will turn to privacy, and 

there is no issue more complicated than privacy, of course. Privacy 

in its strongest sense, the word privacy means the ability to control 

information about one’s self. I believe the protections for EDR data 

stated in Section 107 may help clarify the privacy issues around 

EDR data and still provide a small benefit in terms of privacy protection, but control also comes from having a say in the information 

infrastructure around you and what data collection happens in 

your car, in your home when you use your computer, and so on. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
120 

Consumers today have no control and little awareness of EDRs 

in their cars. They can’t control the presence of EDRs or their functioning. There are shades, unfortunately, in Section 107 of too little, too late in terms of protecting consumer privacy. Consumers 

should have a say in the first instance of whether data is collected. 

Society wide data collection and use will continue to grow. In our 

society down the road the capacity of EDRs will grow undoubtedly. 

EDR data will integrate with other data collected and used by the 

automobile, and EDR data will regularly be used in litigation and 

for many other purposes. Your car is a computer, but if you have 

almost no control of what that computer does your privacy is very 

much threatened. 

Think of EDRs in the near future as an ankle bracelet that all 

drivers will have to wear just for getting behind the wheel. We are 

talking about a loss of privacy and autonomy in developing this 

kind of data infrastructure without consumer input or control. 

Without doubt, there is no doubt in my mind, of course, everyone 

is trying to do the best for auto safety and consumer welfare over 

all, but consumer welfare involves the freedom to live as you want 

unmonitored. I will brag slightly that I rebuilt a few engines when 

I was in high school. I am proud to report both of them ran when 

I was done with the process. There is no reason on God’s green 

earth why a 429 4-barrel and 1973 Mercury Montego should have 

a double roller timing chain but mine did, and I was proud of it. 

I miss the day, frankly, when people could tinker with their cars, 

make their cars an expression of themselves. It may be computer 

geeks in the future that want to tinker with their cars and with 

the data in computing power in their vehicles make those cars 

something special. But I think that freedom consistent with safety 

should continue to exist. Thank you very much for hearing me out. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
121 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 131 here 76575A.084
122 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 132 here 76575A.085
123 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 133 here 76575A.086
124 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 134 here 76575A.087
125 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 135 here 76575A.088
126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 136 here 76575A.089
127 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 137 here 76575A.090
128 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 138 here 76575A.091
129 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 139 here 76575A.092
130 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 140 here 76575A.093
131 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 141 here 76575A.094
132 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 142 here 76575A.095
133 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 143 here 76575A.096
134 

Mr. RUSH. That concludes the opening statements of the witnesses. And I have a question that I want to ask all the witnesses 

to respond, if you will. A lot of ink has flown on this topic of automobile safety. There has been additionally several informative 

oversight hearings held in light of the Toyota incident. We have all 

come to the conclusion that NHTSA needs to be recalibrated, needs 

to be remade. We need a new model for NHTSA, an upgraded 

model for NHTSA, and it needs to be energized, it needs to be 

equipped to achieve its primary goal of securing public safety on 

the highways. And I just have a question, a general question for 

each and every one of you. In an immediate sense in a nutshell 

what is the best possible piece of legislation that you would envision? In other words, what in your words and your viewpoints, 

what is the provision that must exist in any kind of refurbishing 

of NHTSA and what provisions must not exist? Each one of you, 

would you—David wants me to start with you, Mr. Harper. Would 

you please be so kind? 

Mr. HARPER. I am not a NHTSA expert, and I apologize for that, 

but I think two laws that are very important in this area that relate to some of what I said are the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

which requires economic analysis of major rules, rules of having a 

consequence of more than $100 million, and I think the analysis 

should include what the potential costs of all mandates in the bill 

are, regulatory mandates, so that we can understand that if car 

prices are rising so high that it prevents a used car market from 

emerging. There are kids today driving around in cars from the 

’70s, and when they get in an accident those cars are more likely 

to get in accidents because of age and design flaws from the past. 

When they are in accidents they are likely to suffer more injuries 

just because newer cars have better safety features in them, so we 

have got to consider getting people out of older cars into newer cars 

and that is done by making sure that cars are relatively inexpensive, so there are trade-offs here. The reg flex act would be involved 

in that. Another is the Government Performance and Results Act. 

The Results Act was just getting started when I was on the Hill, 

and I recall NHTSA being an example of an agency that did a pretty good job of measuring results per dollar. It is a lot easier than 

rating components of the Justice Department where you are trying 

to measure justice in terms of per dollar. You can’t do it. But traffic 

statistics you can do per dollar and I think continuing that would 

be important. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Ditlow, do you have any concise comments? 

Mr. DITLOW. Mr. Chairman, I think that the transparency and 

oversight provisions are the most important because you can— 

when you look at issuing new standards, we need them. There is 

no question about it. But I am looking at the past 40 years of this 

agency and there needs to be a public oversight to hold the agency 

accountable to enforce the laws that are there. And, unfortunately, 

we don’t have the access today that we once had so creating the 

transparency of how the agency functions, the data that should be 

public but is not public, and then the right to judicially challenge 

the decisions of the agency, that is what will make the agency work 

for the future. It is the age old story, you can tell the agency to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
135 

do something but how do you tell them to do a good job. It is the 

citizen that is going to make the agency do a good job. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Ms. Claybrook, I can’t wait for your answer. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for asking 

the question. I would say that the resources for the agency are totally essential, that this agency is starving to death, as I mentioned. $132 million is ridiculous to expect it to do its job. And so 

I think this bill should not be passed without a goal of $500 million 

a year annual budget for the agency in the next 4 years. So I would 

say an increase each year of $100 million on top of the prior year. 

That is the only way this agency is going to have the capacity to 

do the job that you and I expect it to do. What it shouldn’t have, 

in my view, is a situation where it has conflicts of interest. I think 

that it should not have a test facility owned by a manufacturer. I 

think it is a terrible conflict of interest so that that is something 

that is not in the bill. I think it should be added to the bill. I think 

that there should be criminal penalties. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. STANTON. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think I have 

been in the industry almost as long as most of the people up here, 

maybe not quite as long, but I remember very vividly when years 

ago when seat belt use was 12 percent and now we are up to over 

90 percent, so we have made tremendous, tremendous progress in 

this whole area. And cars have gotten so much more complicated 

over the last 30 years, and we have argued and have lobbied not 

as successfully as I would like to say for additional funds for 

NHTSA when it comes to NASS, the NASS system and the FARR 

system. NHSTA needs to be a data-driven organization, and to the 

degree that we can get them a greater amount of better data the 

better off we all are going to be. And then the final point is that 

the rulemakings that NHTSA undertakes, they really have to be an 

open process and they really cannot have the final rule in sight 

when you start the process. You are not being data driven if you 

do that. 

So the degree that they can go through the rulemaking process, 

have it open, have the record dictate what the final rule looks like 

and when it ought to be implemented given into consideration the 

implementation schedules required by automobile manufacturers 

we end up with a better product. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. McCurdy, do you want to answer this? 

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes, Mr. Chair. I wasn’t completely deferring. I 

was just suggesting an order here. Mr. Chairman, the rule of 

thumb I have always used on legislation is if you have had hearing 

and you identify the problem then address the problem very clearly 

and simply. And we made some recommendations in our testimony 

those areas that address the particular problem that this committee and Congress has identified. We are not into re-litigating 

and going back to decisions on judicial review that was made in 

1988 by courts. What we would like to do is work with you to see 

how we can make this a bipartisan approach that uses common 

sense to really address the underlying problems. And I think you 

have the basis there. Again, there are some key elements that— 

some real makings at NHTSA. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
136 

And my last comment on this, I do not believe that NHTSA is 

broken. You used a car metaphor when you talked about a new 

model. It takes about 5 to 7 years for the industry to create a new 

drive train or a new model. You don’t need to go through that. I 

think there are some tweaks here that you can address, and I 

think that—and we agree that it needs to be adequately resourced. 

The center is a good idea. There are some very important studies 

that are going to take place that we are anxious to see what those 

results are which provide data. The National Academy of Sciences 

and even NASA’s recommendations I think will have real impact 

and help this committee do its work as well. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Kentucky for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you all for your testimony. In reading 

your testimony and also in your verbal response to questions, there 

has been a number of references to these studies that are ongoing 

by NASA and by the National Academy of Sciences. Are those ongoing because of a contract with NHTSA or are these being conducted by contracts with the automobile manufacturers? 

Mr. STANTON. It is through NHTSA. It came about as a requirement from the Toyota investigations and the need for additional 

knowledge and DOT then contracted with NASS and NASA. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Because as someone who really doesn’t understand cars, it seems like this pedal placement standard and transmission configuration standard when you think about the vast variety of vehicles it would be difficult to come up with a uniform 

standard very quickly, and I think that the Administrator of 

NHTSA indicated that he did not think that they could meet the 

time frames in here. Do you all—how many of you believe that 

NHTSA could meet the time frames for the regulations called for 

in this legislation? 

Mr. MCCURDY. As my colleague, Mr. Stanton, mentioned there 

are nine mandates in different rulemakings and we believe—and 

the Administrator admitted this was too compressed. Again, I don’t 

think you have to have that many rulemakings. I don’t think you 

have to—those will not address the problem that really was with 

Toyota. Brake override will address that. It is preferable to have 

a placement or the other approach which again there is a certain 

overreach in the drafting. And I understand positional negotiation 

and obviously the Administrator was asked the question what all 

he would like to see in this bill or did he cover, and he said it captures the universe. Well, it really does capture the universe. It is 

very broad. I think you need to narrow it now in order to get those 

real problems addressed. I think a very straight rulemaking on one 

or two items can address it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Claybrook, what do you think? Do you think 

that NHTSA can meet these deadlines? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, they are certainly going to need a lot more 

resources in order to do so. I would say that. I think they are very 

tough deadlines. I think that they are important though. I don’t 

think that the brake override solves the problem. The brake override is like a safety protection if you have a problem, but it doesn’t 

solve the problem. What you need to solve the problem is to change 

the electronics and improve the electronics in the vehicles themVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:09 Jan 19, 2013 Jkt 076575 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A575.XXX A575

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
137 

selves. And so I think that these standards are really important for 

the agency to address. The reason they have deadlines in them is 

because the agency has taken years and years and years in the 

past to do its job, and so there is a lot of frustration with that and 

with the endangerment of the public that occurs when they don’t 

act. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I personally—yes, Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. STANTON. Just real quickly. There is already a standard 

FMVSS on the transmission and it has to be intuitively correct, so 

there is some work that has already been done on that. But I don’t 

think that there is any way in the world that you could anticipate 

what the requirements are going to be, what the rulemaking outcome should be. Take, for example, your pedal and brake interface. 

What does that mean? How are they going to deal with that? Are 

they going to move the break pedal further away from the gasoline 

pedal? And then what is the implication of that on safety and what 

does it mean to the floor plan of the vehicle? And then how do you 

do that in 2 years? That is not good government. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you have those concerns, Mr. Harper? 

Mr. HARPER. I do. If you look at some of these, there is a great 

deal of information the agency already has. There was a year long 

study done through the Volpe Center on the brake pedal placement. There are certain recommendations that they have made. 

And then when you look at all nine standards there is provision for 

the agency that if they can’t meet the deadlines to come back to 

the Hill and inform the Hill of that. And that happened with the 

roof standard that was just here last year and we got a much better standard out of it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Harper, do you want to comment? OK. Let 

me ask one other question, and I see my time is about to run out. 

The judicial review for a defect petition rejection and trying to stay 

in imminent hazard order the judicial reviews are different. In one 

you go to U.S. District Court and the other you go to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals. Does the fact that these judicial review procedures are different, is that of concern to any of you? 

Mr. STANTON. I guess I would say that the way that they are 

handled is problematic in both cases for different reasons. Certainly the judicial review on imminent hazard is a deviation from 

what is under the CPSC and the other area where the agency 

would have to go to court to get the teeth and ability to do it. But 

the judicial review on the other side is for both defects, rejections, 

and also for new standards. Now we are concerned that you could 

have a lot of people that would like to see a new standard that 

NHTSA would really not for good reason not want to promulgate 

and yet they have now devoted to the court, and we think it ties 

up the agency, will tie up the lawyers and not get the job done. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. If I could just comment on that. I would just 

comment not on the need for them but on just the procedure which 

is that I think under the imminent hazard provision you would 

have to have some kind of a mandatory agency hearing of some 

sort so that there would be a record before they would go to the 

Court of Appeals so I just comment on that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
138 

Mr. DITLOW. The provision for review of defect petition is limited 

to that defect petition. We have 23 years of experience where there 

was judicial review until the court in 1988 said there was no law 

to apply, and yet we only had two lawsuits, and one of those lawsuits actually resulted in the Kelsey-Hayes landmark decision 

where instead of recalling 50,000 GM pickups with a camper body, 

they recalled 200,000 because all the wheels on any of the GM 

pickups could fail. So it has worked, and what we would like to do 

is just reinstate it. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Braley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harper, I took note 

of your testimony talking about people who are foregoing new purchases, remaining in older cars which in many cases are more hazardous to operate on the roadways of this country, and the effect 

of that in terms of greater morbidity and mortality. This came up 

during the Cash for Clunkers debate because as one of the original 

co-sponsors of that bill a lot of us felt like we could have done more 

in terms of giving incentives for people to get older cars, used cars, 

off the road and replacing them with higher quality used cars in 

addition to new cars. And one of the things that Consumer Reports 

mentioned was that a benefit that few people talk about from that 

Cash for Clunkers program was a dramatic improvement in vehicle 

safety from those older cars that were being taken off the road and 

replaced with some that had some of the safety components that 

Mr. McCurdy referred to in his opening statement, that consumers 

are benefitting from a range of innovative new safety technologies. 

So I think one of the things we have to be doing as we set policy 

outside the scope of NHTSA is also looking at ways to provide incentives to people who because of their economic circumstances are 

stuck in these older vehicles. We see this in the real world environment. 

And I think that is something that goes beyond partisan politics 

and get to the root cause of how we provide people with a better 

occupant compartment. But I would like Ms. Claybrook to comment 

on the privacy concerns that Mr. Harper raised because my understanding of privacy is that it goes to an expectation of privacy that 

in order to have a basic right to assert a claim based on privacy 

you have to have an expectation in that time, manner, and place 

that there is a privacy concern to protect. In order to be in one of 

these vehicles with an EDR device in it, you have to be licensed 

and given the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. So I would 

like you to respond because in one of the points you raised you 

talked about the necessity for mandating recording of these incidents, and I would like you to respond to that. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I can tell you that NHTSA has incredible 

privacy protections built into all of its operations and particularly 

for any investigation that is done of any crash. They have been 

doing this for 45 years, and as far as I know there has never been 

any disclosure in all that time of the thousands and thousands of 

crashes they have investigated of any problem, and that is not 

something that necessarily people would even have an expectation 

about because they don’t necessarily know that their crash is going 

to be investigated. With regard to EDRs, every consumer should 

have in the owner’s manual and I believe even more prominently 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
139 

in the vehicle when they buy it an indication that they have an 

EDR so that they know they have one that they have the right to 

have that information. They own that information, in fact. 

What I have suggested in addition is that there be an electronic 

transmission of just the data, not the private information of who 

owns the car or the name of anybody to the agency so that it can 

have real time data to do its job, and this where Mr. Stanton and 

I completely agree. We think that the agency needs much more 

data, and if we can send a satellite up and we can download data 

from that satellite or if we can send people to the moon and talk 

to them from NASA while they are up there, it seems to me we can 

download data from an EDR. So the technology is certainly available. It is just a matter of the will to do it and to do it in a way 

that does not harm any person. 

Mr. BRALEY. And that goes to one of your related recommendations in that the third item you mentioned was the access tools be 

commercially available, which is a current standard. We have to 

have a uniform system for recording and extrapolating the information. This is the same problem we faced, by the way, with electronic health care records and the problem we are having with the 

ability to share information that can help us transform the way we 

learn from the health care that is being delivered in this country. 

One of the other questions I wanted to ask you about has to do 

with the reporting of lawsuits of part of the early warning system, 

which is not currently required. The reason I don’t understand why 

that was not part of the original requirement is if you look at the 

parallel problem of reporting incidents of preventable medical errors under the national practitioner’s database they are required to 

report both claims that are reported under any system as well as 

lawsuits are filed, and that is part of a comprehensive effort to improve patient safety. Wouldn’t that same logic apply in this setting? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Absolutely, and, in fact, we ask the agency to 

include a separate listing of when lawsuits are filed because if 

someone just writes a letter to an auto company and says, well, I 

am thinking about making a claim against you because I have been 

harmed from a defect in your vehicle, it is an entirely different 

thing than if a lawsuit has actually been filed because these lawsuits are complicated, difficult, expensive, and people don’t file 

them unless they have a real view that they could win these lawsuits because they are taken on a contingent fee basis by the lawyer who doesn’t want to have to end up paying a lot of money to 

do it and then not winning the lawsuit. 

It is entirely different in terms of the seriousness of that issue, 

and so I think that separately reported from just claims ought to 

be lawsuits filed on any particular make, model or alleged defect 

that is reported under the early warning system. And it is just a 

number of lawsuits. It is not anything else. It is just a number. 

And so the consumer knows when they go on the database they 

could look and see here is my make, model. There is an alleged defect. That is the same problem I had. And, by the way, there are 

two lawsuits that have been filed or there are 20 lawsuits that 

have been filed, whatever it may be. That is going to inform them 

a lot more about the seriousness of this issue than just that there 

is a bunch of claims that have been perhaps discussed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
140 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman, and the chair thanks 

all the witnesses. There is a vote occurring on the floor so with that 

said, we are going to adjourn the panel. And thank you again for 

your time that you have invested in this hearing and this legislation. Thank you so very much. The committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 151 here 76575A.097
142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 152 here 76575A.098
143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 153 here 76575A.099
144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 154 here 76575A.100
145 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 155 here 76575A.101
146 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 156 here 76575A.102
147 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 157 here 76575A.103
148 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 158 here 76575A.104
149 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 159 here 76575A.105
150 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 160 here 76575A.106
151 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 161 here 76575A.107
152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 162 here 76575A.108
153 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 163 here 76575A.109
154 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 164 here 76575A.110
155 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 165 here 76575A.111
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 166 here 76575A.112
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 167 here 76575A.113
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 168 here 76575A.114
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 169 here 76575A.115
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 170 here 76575A.116