U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–061 WASHINGTON : 2018

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

Serial No. 115–98 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virgina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 55 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Center for Auto Safety ............................................................... 51 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Burgess, Upton, 

Lance, Guthrie, McKinley, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters, 

Costello, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Ca ́ rdenas, Dingell, Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Daniel 

Butler, Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, DCCP; Adam Fromm, 

Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, 

O&I, DCCP; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, DCCP; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, DCCP; Mark 

Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, 

DCCP; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, DCCP; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief 

Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, 

Minority Staff Director; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; 

Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Zach Kahan, Minority Outreach 

and Member Services Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior 

Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Caroline 

Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; and Michelle Rusk, Minority 

FTC Detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Good morning, I would like to call the Subcommittee 

on Digital Commence and Consumer Protection to order. The chair 

now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

I would like to begin by recognizing someone who is sadly not 

with us today. Last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee 

lost our staff director, Ray Baum, after a year’s long battle with 

cancer. Ray was a dedicated public servant both here in Washington and at home in Oregon, an exemplary leader on the committee and a good friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with his 

family during this difficult time. 

2 

In that vein, again, let me thank you for being here today. Welcome, again, to the subcommittee’s hearing today on oversight of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. The 

Deputy Administrator, Heidi King, is here to update the committee 

on many important safety issues at NHTSA. 

Oversight of agencies within the committee’s jurisdiction is critical, we thank you, again, Ms. King, for appearing before us to discuss NHTSA’s priorities and answer questions. 

NHTSA was established by Congress in 1970 to oversee motor 

vehicle safety, and it is tasked with reducing traffic-related deaths 

incurred, injuries, and economic losses. NHTSA accomplishes its 

vehicle safety mission through three major programs: setting motor 

vehicle safety standards, enforcement of investigating motor vehicle 

defects in administrating its recall program, and research data collection and data analysis. Today, the mission remains to keep drivers safe. All the tools at NHTSA’s disposal are important, including 

recent updates to IT infrastructure within the Office of Defect Investigations. 

In recent years, our country has seen an unacceptable rate in 

traffic fatalities. In 2015, traffic deaths rose by 7.7 percent, and in 

2016, we lost more than 37,000 individuals on our roadways. This 

2-year increase is the most dramatic escalation in traffic fatalities 

in more than 50 years. According to NHTSA, the three main causes 

of accidents are, one, people not wearing their seat belts; two, impaired driving, either drunk or drugged driving; and, three, driver 

error. Ninety-four percent of all accidents are due to human error. 

We need to continue to work to find real-world solutions that reduce risk and save lives. 

Technology plays an important role in improving motor vehicle 

safety, and we are seeing more and more advanced safety features 

in cars on the road today. Over a year ago, this subcommittee 

began a review of these new automated features and then expanded to examining the path to self-driving vehicle technology 

here in the United States. After three hearings, two markups, and 

hundreds of meetings, we passed the SELF DRIVE Act 54 to zero 

out of this committee, and the House voice voted to approve the bill 

last September. We will continue to work to get the bill to the 

President’s desk. We know this technology will not wait for the government to catch up. As other countries work to surpass the U.S. 

in the race for self-driving technology, we are going to make sure 

that this incredible innovation, and the high-quality jobs it brings, 

stays rate here at home. 

With that background, it is encouraging to see the continued 

focus at NHTSA on self-driving technology and the potential benefits to improve safety. When this process began, the first Federal 

automated vehicle policy outlined one of the basic principles that 

laid the foundation for the SELF DRIVE Act. NHTSA is the national safety regulator for the design, construction, and performance of motor vehicles. This is true today and should remain true 

as we transition to a fleet that includes self-driving cars. 

Turning to driver impairment, I applaud the agency’s recent announcement of an initiative to combat drugged driving. According 

to recent reports, drivers killed in a car crash in which drugs were 

detected surpassed those killed in crashes where only alcohol was 

3 

involved. In 2015, 43 percent of fatal crashes involved drugs, compared to 37 percent involved alcohol. 

The opioid crisis is having a fatal impact in my district and in 

every state across the country. In 2016 alone, 4,050 people lost 

their lives in Ohio due to unintentional drug overdoses. I have been 

active in this committee and in my district working on this epidemic. The opioid crisis in America is far reaching and devastating 

to families, communities. Combating the epidemic is an all-handson-deck effort, and part of it includes examining drugged driving 

initiatives, like improving roadside detection supporting law enforcement. We stand ready to help our communities address all aspects of the opioid crisis and save lives. We are also continuing to 

deal with the Takata recall, thus the scope and complexity of this 

recall has resulted in recall completion rates lower in a pace slower 

than has been frustrating both as a lawmaker and as a consumer. 

With recalls scheduled in 2020, I look forward to an update on 

the status of this recall and any lessons learned by NHTSA that 

can be used in future recalls. I encourage consumers to visit 

safercar.gov to check if their car is subject to a recall. 

Deputy Administrator King, thank you again for being with us 

today, and I look forward to working with you on these many important issues. 

And, with that, I would like to call on the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for her opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Good morning. I would like to begin by recognizing a major loss to the Energy 

and Commerce Committee with the passing of Ray Baum late last week. Ray was 

a dedicated public servant both here in DC and at home in Oregon. My thoughts 

and prayers are with his family during this difficult time. Mr. Chairman, as you 

said, we will honor his legacy by continuing the work of the committee following 

his example: with graciousness and honor. 

Welcome to the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee’s hearing ‘‘Oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).’’ 

The Deputy Administrator, Heidi King, is here to update the committee on many 

important safety issues at NHTSA. Oversight of agencies within the committee’s jurisdiction is critical. Thank you, Ms. King, for appearing today to discuss NHTSA’s 

priorities and answer questions. 

NHTSA was established by Congress in 1970 to oversee motor vehicle safety, and 

is tasked with reducing traffic-related deaths, injuries and economic losses. NHTSA 

accomplishes its vehicle safety mission through three major programs: 

• Setting motor vehicle safety standards or FMVSS; 

• Enforcement by investigating motor vehicle defects and administering its recall 

program; and 

• Research, data collection, and data analysis. 

Today, this mission to keep drivers safe is as important as it has ever been. All 

of the tools at NHTSA’s disposal are important, including recent updates to IT infrastructure within the Office of Defect Investigations. In recent years, our country has 

seen an unacceptable rise in traffic fatalities. In 2015, traffic deaths rose by 7.7 percent and in 2016, we lost more than 37,000 individuals on our roadways—a 5.6 percent increase. This 2-year increase is the most dramatic escalation in traffic fatalities in more than 50 years. 

According to NHTSA, the three main causes of accidents are: 

(1) people not wearing their seatbelts; 

(2) impaired driving (drunk or drugged driving); and 

(3) driver error. 94% of all accidents are due to human error. 

We need to continue to work together to find real-world solutions that reduce 

these risks and help save lives. 

4 

Technology plays an important role in improving motor vehicle safety, and we are 

seeing more and more advanced safety features in cars on the road today. Over a 

year ago, this subcommittee began a review of these new automated features and 

then expanded to examining the path to self-driving vehicle technology here in the 

U.S. After three hearings, two markups, and hundreds of meetings, we passed the 

SELF DRIVE Act 54–0 out of this Committee and the House voice voted to approve 

the bill last September. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the subcommittee for their hard work in developing bills that were included in the final 

legislation. We will continue to work to get the bill to the President’s desk this year 

because we know this technology will not wait for the government to catch up. As 

other countries work to surpass the U.S. in the race for self-driving technology, we 

want to make sure this incredible innovation, and the high-quality jobs it brings, 

stay right here at home. 

With that background, it is encouraging to see the continued focus at NHTSA on 

self-driving technology and the potential benefits to improve safety. When this process began, the first Federal Automated Vehicle Policy outlined one of the basic principles that laid the foundation for the SELF DRIVE Act: 

• NHTSA is the national safety regulator for the design, construction, and performance of motor vehicles. 

This is true today and should remain true as we transition to a fleet that includes 

self-driving cars. 

Turning to driver impairment: I applaud the agency’s recent announcement of an 

initiative to combat drugged-driving. According to recent reports, drivers killed in 

a car crash in which drugs were detected has now surpassed those killed in crashes 

where only alcohol was involved. In 2015, 43 percent of fatal crashes involved drugs 

compared to 37 percent that involved alcohol. The opioid crisis is having a fatal impact in my district and every state across the country. In 2016 alone, 4,050 Ohio 

residents died of unintentional drug overdoses. In October 2017, I held a forum in 

Defiance to bring people together from my district as wellas representatives from 

DEA and HHS to discuss steps that can be taken to address this tragic epidemic. 

The opioid crisis in America is far-reaching, and devastating to families and communities. Combating the epidemic is an all-hands-on-deck effort, and part of it includes examining drugged driving initiatives, like improving roadside detection and 

supporting local law enforcement. We stand ready to help our communities address 

all aspects of the opioid crisis and save lives. 

One final ongoing issue that this subcommittee will be dealing with for years to 

come: the Takata recall. The scope and complexity of this recall has resulted in recall completion rates lower and at a pace slower that have been frustrating both 

as a lawmaker and as a consumer. With recalls scheduled into 2020, I look forward 

to an update on the status of this recall and any lessons learned by NHTSA that 

can be used in future recalls. I encourage consumers to visit safercar.gov to check 

if their car is subject to recall. 

Deputy Administrator King, thank you for being here today and I look forward 

to working with you on these and many other important issues. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first say on behalf of the Democrats that we also mourn 

the loss of Ray, express gratitude to him for his great service to our 

committee and our country, and send our condolences to his loved 

ones. 

Today, we ha ve our first oversight hearing for NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under the Trump administration. NHTSA continues to be without a Senate-confirmed 

Administrator. In fact, the President has not even announced a 

nominee. Still, I am very pleased to welcome Deputy Administrator 

Heidi King and thank her for the opportunity she gave me to meet 

with her last November, and I look forward to continuing our conversation on innovation and safety. 

5 

NHTSA faces major challenges. For the past 2 years, traffic fatalities have increased, reversing years of progress. At the same 

time, the agency’s resources are stretched thinner than ever, even 

as the staff is called upon to address today’s safety challenges 

while preparing for the self-driving cars of tomorrow: more responsibility, less resources. 

The SELF DRIVE Act, which passed the House last year with bipartisan support, requires NHTSA to create and carry out a plan 

for new and updated safety standards. Fulfilling that mandate requires staff with the experience and capacity to ensure safe development of new technologies. 

Passage of AV legislation is just the first step. The long-term success of autonomous vehicles will be shaped by NHTSA. But 

NHTSA’s work on autonomous vehicles cannot come at the expense 

of conventional vehicles. Consumers have been overwhelmed the 

last couple of years with recall announcements from Takata airbags to GM ignition switches. Recall effectiveness remains too low. 

We made progress in the FAST Act by restricting rental cars under 

open recalls. Unfortunately, auto dealers can still sell used cars 

under open recall. 

Some auto dealers are even taking backward steps. In December 

2016, AutoNation ended its pledge to not sell vehicles under open 

recall. AutoNation’s CEO, Mike Jackson, explained: With the 

Trump administration, there is no way that that issue is going to 

be addressed from a regulatory point of view.’’ So far, he has been 

proven right. 

I have introduced the Used Car Safety Recall Repair Act to fix 

this problem. I have also pushed for imminent hazard authority 

and stronger penalties for violating safety standards. I would welcome the administration’s support for these efforts. 

As we push for further safety improvements, many rulemakings, 

including rulemakings directed by Congress, remain pending with 

no obvious progress over the last year. I will be seeking status updates on several of those rulemakings during my questions. I am 

worried about these delays because I know all too well how long 

it can take to get legislation put into effect. It has been a 10-year 

battle to get my legislation to prevent child backover deaths to be 

implemented. Finally, in 2018, backup cameras will be standard in 

all new passenger vehicles and lives will be saved. 

I wonder what other safety improvements are stalled at NHTSA 

and will continue to be stalled by the administration’s 

anticonsumer efforts to minimize new safety protections and how 

many lives will be lost in the meantime. 

I am also concerned about this administration’s rollback of energy efficiency standards adopted during the Obama administration. NHTSA is currently evaluating or I should say reevaluating 

the corporate average fuel economy standards for model years. I 

guess I am not out of time. It is no mystery why CAFE standards 

are being reviewed. This administration has bowed to industry 

pressure to lower them. I have also seen reports that changes to 

the standards could extend to model year 2021 and 2026. Maybe 

we will get some clarity on that today. Otherwise, we will see what 

happens when the new proposal comes out on March 30. 

6 

Strong fuel economy standards drive innovation, as we have seen 

what the tremendous gains in fuel efficiency since the CAFE program began. I hate to see us reverse that. So, Ms. King, I want to 

thank you for being here today. I look forward to working with you 

on all of these issues as long as you are in that role. I hope you 

share my sense of urgency in improving the safety and efficiency 

of America’s vehicles. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the 

chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I join my colleagues on this committee in honoring and remembering Ray Baum, my dear friend and an incredible public 

servant and family man. We all miss him, his humor, his great 

commitment to public service, his intellect. And to quote Ray: ‘‘It’s 

good to have you out.’’ That was one of his phrases he would greet 

us with every day. And ‘‘The fun never stops.’’ And I think he 

would want us to keep that going. So I appreciate the words of my 

colleagues. 

This morning, we begin a series of oversight and budget-related 

hearings across the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is essential that this side of the government, the legislative branch, and the American public knows what is going on in 

the Federal agencies. And so we appreciate the Deputy Administrator for being here. You are first up in this multiweek effort now 

that we will have before the committee. We are glad you are here 

and glad of the work you are doing at NHTSA. 

Safety on our roadways, as you have heard and you know, is 

something we all care deeply about. With a record number of traffic 

fatalities on the rise, increasing to more than 37,000 in 2016, it remains critical to evaluate NHTSA’s efforts to keep our Nation’s 

roadways and vehicles safe. 

With a growing number of devices and services designed to keep 

Americans constantly occupied, distracted driving is a real issue. In 

Oregon, there were over 4,000 distracted driving crashes back in 

2014 alone. My hunch is that has probably just gotten worse since 

then. Ninety-four percent we are told of those traffic-related crashes are due to human error. We have talked about the work that 

we did on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Pallone, Ms. Schakowsky, 

and others. A generation from now will look back, if our SELF 

DRIVE Act gets into law and collision avoidance gets into law, and 

point out these figures, and they will say: What a bunch of barbarians; you drove yourselves in? How did you text? How did you 

phone call? 

And so we need to move forward with our SELF DRIVE Act. We 

have done it in the House. We put a lot of work into that. I came 

to what I thought was really a solid piece of public policy and 

passed it I think unanimously in the House. And now we need to 

get it all the way down to the President’s desk to have national 

standards and improve our roadways and give us safety. 

7 

There are a couple of other issues dealing with recall you will 

hear about today, whether it is Takata airbags and where we stand 

on that, or just the recall issues overall. I would appreciate an update on the agency’s ongoing efforts in the recall of Takata airbags. 

Next steps, lessons learned for the next stages of this massive, 

unprecedented, I would argue, recall. This recall would be ongoing 

through 2020 I am told. We need to make sure that consumers 

have all the information they need to get their airbags replaced as 

quickly and safely as possible. Safercar.gov has a search tool you 

can use if your car has any open recall. So safercar.gov. 

And looking at the recall issue on a broader scale, I am also very 

interested in hearing about efforts to improve the secondary market players’ ability to identify and remove recalled parts from the 

supply chain. I recently met with some folks in Oregon who are 

very involved in this effort. They are very frustrated about how the 

current system works and believe there must be a simpler way 

where you can scan the VIN number and be told whether there are 

parts on this car that should not be put into the supply chain or, 

if they are, taken out. So I know you have had discussions about 

the ability for stakeholders to search multiple VINs at once or 

batch searches. So any updates you can provide the committee on 

NHTSA-led or industry-led efforts on this front would be greatly 

appreciated, because it is critical we continue to improve this recall 

process at every level of the supply chain. 

America’s roadways are the backbone of our Nation, apart from 

being a way to get from point A to B, safely traveling for business, 

family vacation, whatever we do out there is critical to all of us. 

And so NHTSA plays an incredibly important role in this effort. 

And we look forward to working in partnership between the Congress and the administration to move forward with our SELF 

DRIVE Act and continue to improve roadway safety for our Nation’s drivers. 

And so, Deputy Administrator King, thank you for being with us 

today. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and confess that 

there is another hearing going on I need to give an opening statement for as well. And so I will be in and out. But thank you for 

holding this hearing and kicking off this effort. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Thank you, Chairman Latta. This morning we begin a series of oversight and 

budget-related hearings across the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce committee. It is essential that we in Congress, and more importantly the American public, know what is going on at federal agencies. Today, we will hear from Deputy Administrator King about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) priorities and safety initiatives. 

Safety on our roadways is a national imperative. With the number of traffic fatalities on the rise—increasing to more than 37,000 in 2016, it remains critical to evaluate NHTSA’s efforts to keep our Nation’s roadways and vehicles safe. With the 

growing number of devices and services designed to keep Americans constantly occupied, distracted driving has become a serious problem. 

In my home State of Oregon, there were over 4,000 distracted driving crashes in 

2014 alone. In total, ninety-four percent of traffic-related crashes are due to human 

error. 

8 

We all have stories about our commutes to the office or around our district, and 

what people will do while also trying to drive. Technology, responsibly developed, 

has the potential to transform the driving operation and reduce risks from distraction and impairment. 

This subcommittee worked with a wide range of stakeholders, over many months, 

and ultimately the full committee reported the bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act—54– 

0. The House passed the bill a few weeks later without opposition. We did not let 

the chance to save lives and support American innovation pass us by, and I remain 

committed to moving this legislation to the President’s desk this year. I would like 

to thank Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, Rep. Upton, and Rep. Dingell for their work on this important legislation. 

The SELF DRIVE Act will provide companies with greater flexibility to test and 

generate data for the development of self-driving cars and, importantly, clarifies 

NHTSA’s role as the national safety regulator. 

Not only will these vehicles make our roadways safer, they also have the potential 

to improve mobility for the elderly and disabled and increase transportation access 

for rural and traditionally underserved communities. 

Turning to another issue that is impacting every district in the country—the 

opioid crisis. I look forward to hearing more about the recently announced Drugged 

Driving Initiative at NHTSA. Driving under the influence of prescription opioids 

and marijuana now causes more traffic fatalities than driving under the influence 

of alcohol. 

This is a prime example of an issue where federal leadership is valuable to bring 

together stakeholders, such as law enforcement and other community leaders, to 

find a way to protect people on our roads and combat the opioid crisis. 

While there are new opportunities on the agenda for NHTSA, the agency still 

faces many challenges. Recall completion rates, including the ongoing Takata recall, 

continue to be an area where we encourage improvement. The complexity of the 

Takata recall only seems to grow, and even this week there is another expansion 

of ‘‘do not drive’’ warnings. 

I would appreciate an update on the agency’s ongoing efforts in the Takata recall, 

next steps, and lessons learned for the next stages of the recall. This recall will be 

ongoing through 2020, and we need to make sure that consumers have all the information they need to get their airbags replaced as quickly and safely as possible. 

SaferCar.gov has a search tool so you can see if your car has any open recalls. 

Looking at the recall issue on a broader scale, I am also interested hearing about 

efforts to improve secondary market players’ ability to identify and remove recalled 

parts from the supply chain. There have been discussions about improving the ability for stakeholders to search multiple VINs at once, or batch searches. Any updates 

on NHTSA-lead or industry-lead efforts on this front would be greatly appreciated. 

It’s critical we continue to improve the recall process. 

America’s roadways are the backbone of our Nation. Far from just being a way 

to get from point A to point B, safely traveling, for business, family events, vacation, 

or simply running errands, is a necessity for families across the country. We must 

continue working together to encourage innovation, promote best practices, and be 

at the forefront of technological advances in the auto industry. Progress is critical 

to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our Nation’s drivers. I want to thank 

Deputy Administrator King again for being here today and I look forward to this 

important safety discussion. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today marks the first time someone from the Trump administration is testifying before this subcommittee. I thank Deputy Administrator King for being here. This is important for oversight and accountability. 

9 

It is particularly important for this authorizing committee to 

hear from NHTSA, the agency responsible for automobile safety. 

Last year, the House passed a bipartisan bill, written by this committee, that would ensure that, as autonomous vehicles are becoming more prevalent on our roads, that proper rules are in place. 

And specifically the House bill requires NHTSA to update and 

issue new standards to accommodate self-driving cars. Unfortunately, that bill was passed with zero input from the administration on how or whether it could be implemented. And there are legitimate concerns that NHTSA is not prepared and is not keeping 

up with the quickly changing automotive industry. It is troubling 

that NHTSA does not have the resources, people, or expertise it 

needs to fulfill its mandate. It is also concerning that the administration clearly does not see this agency as a priority as we have yet 

to hear about a possible nomination for the role of NHTSA Administrator. 

Investigations by this committee have demonstrated how ill-prepared NHTSA is today. During this committee’s investigation of 

sudden intended acceleration, we learned that NHTSA did not have 

expertise in emerging technologies with little to no electrical or 

software engineers on staff. 

Then, during the ignition switch investigation, we found that 

NHTSA did not understand the link between the power mode status and the air bag system. What is more, at the same time as we 

are working to nudge NHTSA into the 21st century, the current administration is doubling down on a hands-off approach. In February of last year, the President issued an executive order requiring agencies to make recommendations to repeal, replace, or modify 

regulations. Then, in March, the President signaled that he was 

going to loosen fuel standards. And just last month, the Secretary 

of Transportation announced that she is working on a Federal 

automated vehicle policy 3.0 to ‘‘remove regulatory barriers for autonomous vehicles.’’ And this announcement came just 4 months 

after Secretary Chao released version 2.O, which already loosened 

agency guidance. 

It is hard for me to understand how the administration is moving 

forward with an effort to get rid of important safety and environmental standards when NHTSA has not even finalized several important standards that became law in 2012 and 2015. And these 

include a rulemaking on rear seatbelt reminders and one to improve protection of children seated in car seats during side impacts. 

NHTSA should prioritize completing these important rules that are 

critical to the safety of passengers. 

Safety is also essential when it comes to autonomous vehicles. It 

is a great time to be in the automotive industry and to be participating in its technological evolution. The work on self-driving cars 

is fascinating and promising. Some vehicles on the road today can 

self-park and automatically brake. And while it is important that 

we hear from NHTSA about how it is getting the tools and skills 

necessary to deal with the ever-changing landscape, I want to 

make sure NHTSA is doing what it must to ensure safety now. 

In 2016, more than 37,000 people were killed on U.S. roads. That 

is an increase of 5.6 percent from 2015. And 2015 saw a 7.2-percent 

increase over 2014 numbers. And this trend is troubling. Cars are 

10 

part of our everyday lives. We depend on them to get us where we 

need to go. We count on NHTSA to ensure that they are safe and 

fuel-efficient. And I am pleased that Deputy Administrator King 

was brought on board at NHTSA in the fall. I urge the nomination 

of an Administrator so that the agency has the full leadership 

needed to deal with the many exciting but challenging tasks ahead 

at NHTSA. 

I look forward to continuing our discussion about how NHTSA 

can work harder to stay with the curve, if not ahead of it. I have 

about a minute left that I would yield a minute to Congresswoman 

Dingell, of course. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I am grateful to you, 

Ranking Member. 

Deputy Administrator King, welcome to the committee, and it 

was great to see you in Detroit. I am just going to add comments 

to those that have been made by all of my colleagues about selfdriving cars, which do have the promise to save lives, decrease congestion, and improve access to mobility services to seniors and the 

disabled if we get the policy right. As everybody is saying here, we 

need to get it right. 

But to be competitive, we have got to make sure we have a flexible framework that is going to keep up with the changing technology. And we have got to make sure we are staying at the forefront of innovation technology and that we are developing it here, 

not in China or India. At the same time, we need to make sure that 

safety is always number one. So thank you for being here. I look 

forward to working with you. We are not going to let this be built 

anyplace else. We need to work with you to make sure it is on the 

road and we are keeping everybody safe. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back. 

And again, we want to thank our witness for being with us today 

and taking time to testify before the subcommittee. 

Today’s witness will have the opportunity to give a 5-minute 

opening statement followed by a round of questions from the members. Our witness for today’s hearing is Ms. Heidi King, the Deputy 

Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Ms. King, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. KING. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky and Members of the subcommittee. I am truly honored 

to testify before you today. I am proud to have served the members 

of this committee through the 112th session of Congress, one of the 

highlights of my career. 

Before I begin, I would like to extend my sympathies to the committee and its members for the loss of Mr. Ray Baum. Ray was a 

wonderful colleague, an extraordinary individual. We mourn his 

passing and are very much—I am before you today inspired by his 

humor, his resilience, and his commitment to public service. 

Today, I am excited to tell you how NHTSA is acting its mission 

of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing economic costs. As 

11 

the automotive transportation landscape is changing at a rapid 

pace, NHTSA is adopting and adapting our mission of execution to 

assure safety while remaining in step with these changing technologies, addressing new and emerging risks, and encouraging industry innovation. Safety is and safety remains the Department’s 

top priority. 

As you mentioned, 37,461 lives were lost in 2016. Combined with 

an increase the prior year, these losses of life represent the largest 

proportionate increase in highway fatalities in my lifetime. The 

loss of life is, I believe we all agree, unacceptable. The rise in fatalities has occurred during a time of great change in the transportation landscape. More Americans are choosing to bicycle, to walk, 

to rideshare. Both our vehicles and our roadways, the way we 

interact with them are evolving at a rapid pace. 

As the average lifespan of motor vehicles increases, Americans 

are keeping older cars than ever before. We know newer cars are 

safer. The occupant of a newer car is much more likely to survive 

a crash than the occupant of an older car. This underscores why 

it is so incredibly important to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, and fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Adapting to changes is how Americans travel. NHTSA will continue to employ risk-management best practices across all of our 

activities to identify, to assess, mitigate and continuously improve 

our management of highway safety risks. One of the emerging 

risks that NHTSA is fully committed to mitigating is the problem 

of drug-impaired driving. We know that many people switch between use of alcohol and illicit drugs or consume them together. 

And we need to consider both drugs and alcohol in addressing the 

serious problem of impaired driving on our roadways. To that end, 

NHTSA has announced an initiative to strengthen the strategies 

necessary to reduce drug-impaired driving on our Nation’s roads. 

Next month, NHTSA will launch the national dialogue in a Call to 

Action, a national summit that will bring together experts and 

stakeholders to share best practices and identify near-term and 

longer term strategies to save lives. 

This effort is intended to build upon the previous work of the 

agency and will complement the work of our state and local partners. We are all in this together. 

I have heard from members of this subcommittee that you share 

our concern and you have offered support for this initiative. I am 

tremendously grateful for your partnership in this endeavor, and I 

look forward to working with you. 

In our changing landscape, in addition to changing preferences 

and an emerging drug-impaired driving risk on our roadways, 

NHTSA is committed to assuring safety while also encouraging advances in innovation and automation and in changing automation 

technology. Last September, Secretary Elaine L. Chao released A 

Vision for Safety 2.0, our new voluntary guidance to encourage safe 

introduction of emerging automated technologies on our roadways. 

A Vision for Safety paves the way for the safe testing and deployment of automated driving systems by encouraging best practices 

for manufacturers, and also for state and local governments, and 

by fostering open communication between the public, industry, and 

various stakeholders. 

12 

Secretary Chao has also announced that we are at the Department of Transportation already working on an updated guidance, 

3.0, which will be released later this year, and that will further facilitate the adoption of automated driving systems through a holistic and multimodal framework. 

We at NHTSA are excited by the benefits that automated technologies can bring to safety, mobility, and the efficiency of our 

transportation networks. And we look forward to hearing from the 

public, Members of Congress, and industry in the coming months 

on how we can further reduce barriers to accelerate the safe deployment of potentially lifesaving technologies. 

As the technologies change, consumer choices evolve and social 

trends continue. You have the commitment of each member of the 

NHTSA team that we will prioritize our mission in all that we do 

to save lives, to prevent injuries, and to reduce the economic cost 

of traffic crashes. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:] 

13 


30061.001

Testimony of 

Heidi King, Deputy Administrator 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

"Oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" 

February 14, 2018 

Good morning Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am truly honored to testify before you today. I am proud to have served the 

Members of this Committee through the 1 12'h session of Congress. 

Today, I am excited to tell you about how NHTSA is acting on its mission of saving lives, 

preventing injuries, and reducing economic costs. As the automotive transportation landscape is 

changing at a rapid pace, NHTSA is adapting our mission execution to assure safety while 

remaining in step with changing technology, addressing new and emerging risks, and 

encouraging industry innovation. 

Safety is the Department of Transportation's top priority. 

** 
14 


30061.002

37,461 lives were lost in motor vehicle crashes in 2016. Combined with an increase the year 

prior, this represents the largest proportionate increase in highway fatalities in my lifetime. The 

loss of life is unacceptable. 

This rise in fatalities has occurred during a time of great change in our transportation landscape. 

More Americans are choosing to bicycle, to walk, and to rideshare. Both our vehicles and our 

roadways, and the way we interact with them, are evolving at a rapid pace. 

As the average lifespan of motor vehicles increases, Americans are keeping older cars more than 

ever before, although we know that newer cars are safer: an occupant of a newer car is much 

more likely to survive a crash than an occupant of an older car. This underscores why it is so 

incredibly important to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, fuel-efficient 

vehicles. 

Adapting to changes in how Americans travel, NHTSA will continue to employ risk 

management best practices across all of our activities to identify, assess, mitigate and 

continuously improve our management of highway safety risks. 

** 

One of the emerging risks that NHTSA is fully committed to mitigating is the problem of drugimpaired driving. 
15 


30061.003

We know that many people switch between alcohol and drugs, or consume them together, and 

we need to consider both drugs and alcohol in addressing the very serious problem of impaired 

driving. 

To that end, NHTSA has announced an initiative to strengthen the strategies necessary to reduce 

drug-impaired driving on our nation's roads. Next month, NHTSA will launch the national 

dialogue in a 'Call to Action' a national summit that will bring together experts and 

stakeholders to share best practices and identify ncar term and longer term strategies to save 

lives. 

This is intended to build upon the previous work of the Agency and complement the efforts of 

our state and local partners. 

I have heard from many members of this Subcommittee that you share our concern and have 

offered support for this initiative. I am tremendously grateful for your partnership on this 

endeavor. 

** 

In addition to changing consumer preferences and emerging DUID risk, NHTSA is committed to 

assuring safety while also encouraging advances in innovation, automation, and changing 

automotive technology. 
16 


30061.004

Last September, Secretary Elaine L. Chao released A Vision for Safety 2. 0, our new voluntary 

guidance to encourage the safe introduction of emerging automated technologies onto our public 

roadways. A Vision for Safety paves the way for the safe testing and deployment of Automated 

Driving Systems by encouraging best practices for manufacturers and state and local 

governments, and by fostering open communication between the public, industry, and the 

various stakeholders. 

Secretary Chao has announced that the Department of Transportation will release updated 

guidance- version 3.0 -later this year, which will further facilitate the adoption of automated 

transportation systems through a holistic, multi-modal framework. We are excited by the 

benefits automated technologies can bring to safety, mobility, and the efficiency of our 

transportation networks, and we look forward to hearing from the public, Members of Congress, 

and industry in the coming months on how we can further reduce barriers to accelerate the safe 

deployment of potentially life-saving technologies. 

** 

As technology changes, consumer choices evolve, and social trends continue, you have the 

commitment of each member of the NHTSA team that we will prioritize our mission in all that 

we do: To save lives, prevent injuries and to reduce the economic costs of traffic crashes. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 
17 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony today. 

And, with that, we will move into our question-and-answer portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. King, safety is NHTSA’s number one priority. How do you 

see the agency fulfilling its mission with limited resources moving 

forward? 

Ms. KING. Very good. Thank you for asking. Our resource question is addressed by the President’s budget, which was issued on 

Monday. It can be described briefly as two-thirds grant programs 

and one-third divided between highway and vehicle safety. The 

two-thirds grant funding request represents our partnership with 

states and the fact that the highway safety is where the rubber 

hits the road, which is in our communities, in our states. The remaining one-third, divided between highway safety, behavioral, 

such as drug-impaired driving or driver awareness programs, and 

vehicle safety to allow us to continue to assess the engineering design and safety and defects components of our program. 

In addition, the budget represents a shift towards increasing 

focus on the emerging technologies, our engineers are hard at work 

to remain in step with the changing technologies. And we are very 

excited about the safety promise they bring. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

With the self-driving vehicle technology, as you have heard, we 

brought through this committee—is a priority of not only the subcommittee but also the full committee, as you know or as you have 

heard. Throughout NHTSA’s guidance on self-driving technology, 

NHTSA has reaffirmed its role as the national safety regulator of 

vehicles. How important do you believe it is that NHTSA remain 

the safety regulator for current and future automotive technologies? 

Ms. KING. It is, chairman, it is the law of the land. NHTSA is 

responsible for the design, construction, and performance of all motorized vehicles in the United States. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, one of the things that we saw with the legislation is—when we are talking about preemption, and as a lot of 

states are out there trying to do their own thing, we believe is very, 

very important and that you believe that we have that one standard set forth. And so what would you say to all the states out there 

that are maybe right now either legislating or promulgating their 

own rules? 

Ms. KING. We have had a very rich dialogue with the states. 

Each dialogue I have had with the states, we all understand that 

NHTSA is responsible for vehicle design, performance, and construction. The states will remain responsible for the safe operation 

of those vehicles on the roads and the licensing of drivers. The traditional division of responsibilities at the state and Federal level 

has continued and will continue under the existing law. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. As we have talked about today and you 

have heard from individuals from this community, the opioid crisis 

is just that: it is a crisis or an epidemic across our country. We are 

now learning how many people are driving under the influence of 

not just alcohol but drugs. You mentioned NHTSA’s drugged-driving initiative. Can you explain your goals for this program? 

18 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. The crisis is heartbreaking for those of us 

who have worked in public safety and have been with drivers at 

the time of an accident, some of whom are losing their lives. It is 

unacceptable that we have the continued loss of life and the proportionate increases recently. 

One of the points that has struck me since coming to NHTSA 20 

weeks ago is that the data is actually fairly scant. The crisis of 

drug use in the U.S. has come upon us so quickly, we do not have 

adequate nationally representative data sets. But we do have data 

sets in certain regions. We do understand that crisis that is upon 

us. The initial goal is to start using the expertise where people are 

starting to win, starting to solve the problem, and make sure, in 

the near term, best-practice sharing helps us save lives today. 

But that is not all the initiative is. I see the need for us to set 

a path toward what we need to accomplish in the middle and long 

term so that the Nation is on a path toward the creation of the 

data, the processes and the systems we need to combat drug-impaired driving as well as alcohol-impaired driving. The dialogue begins on March 15, and I look forward to having more information 

to share after hearing from our experts and stakeholders. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

In my last 44 seconds, NHTSA issued another consumer safety 

advisory and Takata recall with increased ‘‘do not drive’’ warnings 

for certain Ford and Mazda models. Consumers should check the 

safercar.gov to see if their car is included in this recall. 

In my last 30 seconds here, could you provide us with an update 

on the Takata recall and what other steps consumers should take 

to protect themselves? 

Ms. KING. Yes, absolutely. To remind consumers that most airbags safe lives, thousands of lives are saved each year, but there 

is a set of airbags that are dangerous. And in fact, the ‘‘do not 

drive’’ order that was issued on Monday reflects that there is a set 

of airbags that can explode and hurt people. So we encourage people to, first of all, check the website—we would recommend 

www.nhtsa.gov—entering their VIN and understand whether their 

vehicle is one of the life-saving, one of the good airbags that we all 

keep operating in our vehicles, or one of the sets that needs to be 

replaced. I encourage people to reach out to their dealership for a 

free replacement. If subject to the ‘‘do not drive’’ order or the ‘‘do 

not drive’’ recall on Monday, that they do not drive, but in fact a 

tow truck will come pick up their car and fix it for them to make 

it safe again. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

My time has expired. And I would like to at this time recognize 

the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much. 

In September, the House passed, and we have been talking a lot 

about it, the SELF DRIVE Act to promote the safe deployment of 

self-driving cars. There was a GAO report last November that 

found that the Department of Transportation is actually not prepared to address the coming safety and infrastructure challenges 

from self-driving cars. You talked about something that is happening later this year, but all we have really seen so far are volVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-98 CHRIS
19 

untary guidelines to industry. So when will NHTSA or DOT issue 

a comprehensive set of priorities for rules on autonomous vehicles 

and a detailed roadmap for implementation? 

Let me just point out that DOT said that such a plan would be 

premature. I disagree. The autonomous technology is already here. 

So when are we going to see priorities for rulemaking? 

Ms. KING. Ranking Member Schakowsky, thank you for that 

question. I would quote Congressman Pallone in saying it is important to stay with the curve and not ahead of it. We feel very strongly that the technologies are still emerging. I would refer back to my 

experience as a research scientist at the old Bell Labs at Telcordia 

Technologies. We were, in the year 2000, thinking about the emergence of telecom, what will telephones be like when we have 3G 

and 4G on our phones? We made some predictions. Some of them 

were right; some of them were wrong. That gives me a humility 

about our ability not only to predict how the technology will evolve 

to contribute to safety but also how consumers will adopt it. 

The voluntary adaptive, flexible approach to NHTSA has chosen 

and the Department of Transportation is choosing for all modes of 

transportation recognizes the importance of allowing the technology 

to evolve to best meet the needs of the safety community and also 

of consumers. So I look forward to continuing to work with you. It 

is very important to all of us clearly that we not only maintain safe 

roadways, but we allow the technology to evolve to improve the 

safety on our roadways. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Actually, the quote was: I look forward to continuing our discussion about how NHTSA can work hard to stay 

with the curve, if not ahead of it. 

So things are happening. I want to be sure that we are not only 

looking forward. It sounds like you are saying we are. 

You also stated in your letter to the committee that NHTSA will 

continue to actively improve and advance safety here and now. So 

I have some here and now questions that look to me like NHTSA 

is not actually keeping up. It is years behind on a number of rulemaking, including some that were statutorily mandated. MAP-21 

required a rule to better protect children and car seats during sideimpact crashes. This rule is 2 years overdue. When will NHTSA 

issue the final rule? 

Ms. KING. Ranking Member Schakowsky, we are completing research on that rulemaking now. I realize we are not moving at the 

speed that we would have liked to, but we believe that to protect 

our most vulnerable citizens—I am a mother myself—that we need 

to get it right rather than fast, and that did require some research 

before promulgation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, but you know, it is 2 years overdue. I just 

want to make that point. We are talking about children. 

Ms. KING. Yes, thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And crashes. 

MAP-21 required NHTSA to write a rule on improving child-restraint-anchorage systems by 2015. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2015, but there has been no further action. 

When will NHTSA finalize this rule? 

Ms. KING. Once again, I actually don’t know the status of that 

rule. I can check and get back to you on that. I will say that, again, 

20 

the research is critical to our getting the rule right. Oftentimes, 

when a rule has been proposed, we receive new information in the 

public comment period that needs to be considered. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We are talking 2015. 

Ms. KING. I understand. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The FAST Act directed a rule that would ensure consumers are notified of recalls electronically, in addition to 

by email. The final rule was due in 2016, but NHTSA has only 

issued an NPRM. 

Ms. KING. That is right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So far, also in 2016. So when will NHTSA finalize this rule? 

Ms. KING. I am pleased to tell you that we do actually have now 

on the website at www.nhtsa.gov the opportunity for vehicle owners to enter a VIN and enter their email address and receive an 

alert digitally to changing recall information. So there is a 

functionality there. The rule has not been finalized, but I look forward to having that available for—I look forward to moving forward on that. But I will assure you that the website resources are 

there so we are able to advise consumers of changes in defect status on individual cars. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If they act first. They have to go to the 

website. 

Ms. KING. That is right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If I could ask one more. The FAST Act directed NHTSA to require manufacturers to retain vehicle safety 

records. That rule was due over a year ago. And when will NHTSA 

finalize that? 

Ms. KING. If I am understanding the provision you are referring 

to, I believe that that would have completed already. It would have 

been wrapped up into one of two places, either in improvements to 

the Artemis system, our defects program, or it may have been in 

the rulemaking finalized on January 25th. But I would be happy 

to get that detail from your staff, and I will make sure that I am 

understanding your question fully. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That would be great. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Illinois, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks for yielding and for holding the hearing. Thank you for being here today 

and your service and just even another additional realm of a long 

career of service, so thank you. 

I would like to add my voice to the many here who have talked 

about Ray. And I picture Ray still just recently on the floor, and 

he came up with some exciting news to tell me about something 

that had a happened. He always just lit up the room. So, to his 

family, our deepest sympathies. 

For NHTSA, we appreciate you being here. We appreciate Ms. 

King for taking the time out. 

I would like to discuss my amendment to the FAST Act requiring 

automobile manufacturers to provide original equipment defective 

parts data to the professional automotive recycling industry. Electronic sharing of defective part numbers and other identifiable inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-98 CHRIS
21 

formation and recall notices with recyclers and others will improve 

safety and aid NHTSA in achieving a 100-percent recall completion 

rate. 

Every day, professional automotive recyclers sell over half a million OEM parts, which provide consumers and repair shops with 

safe and economical repair options. They critically need this information to ensure that level of safety. It has been 26 months since 

this safety provision was enacted. Can you describe to me the status of implementation on this? 

Ms. KING. Yes. We have done the work at NHTSA to assess 

whether or not our existing VIN look-up tool can be converted to 

a batch tool. I believe that is what you are referring to. We have 

found that the system does not adapt readily. I am happy to continue working with your staff on other ideas, but I have heard good 

news that many in industry have started to solve this problem. I 

have seen that there may be some other solutions coming not from 

NHTSA, as we all very much appreciate and respect the importance of the secondary market for auto parts and am eager also to 

make sure that parts and vehicles that are sold are safe and in 

compliance with any outstanding recalls. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Do you have a timeframe for getting this thing 

fully implemented? 

Ms. KING. I do not have a timeframe for completing the work. As 

I mentioned, we did not see that our tool would adapt easily or 

adapt at all to a VIN look-up tool, a bulk VIN look-up tool. But, 

again, I am under the impression—I have been told that there are 

some other solutions that are near ready that may beat NHTSA to 

the punch. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Well, if you could just follow up with us, 

that would be great because I think that is an important provision 

that, if it is effectively implemented, it is critical to the safety of 

the driving public. 

Additionally, several automakers in past hearings have assured 

me and other members that they are going to work with the auto 

recyclers to produce an effective outcome to the situation, but I 

haven’t heard anything of that yet. Will you consider, if there are 

further issues, having NHTSA host a high-level recall safety summit of affected stakeholders to more effectively address any of these 

outstanding issues if it is a problem? 

Ms. KING. I absolutely welcome feedback from all stakeholders. 

This is clearly an issue I would like to hear more about. So I would 

welcome conversation, yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And cybersecurity is very important to me, 

and it is something we focus on a lot. As we continue to move toward an increasingly connected world, we have to be mindful of cybersecurity and do what we can to address these concerns. As you 

may know, I introduced H.R. 3407, which was eventually rolled 

into the SELF DRIVE Act. The bill requires manufacturers to 

maintain a cybersecurity plan to identify an officer as the point of 

contact with responsibility for management of cybersecurity, a 

process for limiting access to automated driving systems, and a 

process for training on cybersecurity. Can you please walk me 

through NHTSA’s approach to cybersecurity and how NHTSA will 

22 

consider cybersecurity in its safety evaluations of vehicles moving 

forward? 

Ms. KING. It is my great honor to do so. Cybersecurity is also a 

great interest of mine and a priority of ours at NHTSA. In 2016, 

NHTSA issued a guidance for auto manufacturers with respect to 

cybersecurity. And furthermore, cybersecurity is one of the 12 safety elements that is discussed for voluntary disclosure in A Vision 

for Safety 2.0, issued September of 2017. I find myself also very excited about the Auto ISAC, the Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center, which is a group of not only auto manufacturers but also 

suppliers and cybersecurity experts who have convened a vigorous 

dialogue to understand how we can share best practices and get 

ahead of the risks before they manifest themselves in our vehicles. 

I attended and was honored to give a keynote at their inaugural 

meeting recently and look forward to seeing that conversation blossom. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I have another question, but in the interest of 

time, I won’t ask it, but I will just finish by saying cybersecurity 

is essential. And, obviously, as we go forward in this amazingly 

interconnected world, there are some really good opportunities and 

some really bad things that can frighten you. So I appreciate you 

taking a serious look at that. 

And I yield back the remainder. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back the remainder of his time. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the 

ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to continue on Ms. Schakowsky’s line of questioning. I 

agree that NHTSA has been falling behind on its safety mission. 

And I also ask that you keep your answers short because I have 

a bunch of questions. They are not difficult, though. 

One area that has been falling behind is the national 911 office 

housed at NHTSA and jointly run with the NTIA. Six years ago, 

Congress charged the 911 office with issuing $115 million in grants 

to help deploy the next generation 911. Unfortunately, the 911 office has yet to even finalize its grantmaking rules. So my question 

is, when can we expect the 911 office to finalize the rules and actually award the grants? 

Ms. KING. You will see a rulemaking coming forward soon this 

year. As a former 911 dispatcher, I share your sense of urgency. 

It is absolutely critical. Thank you for your support. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. So, when it comes to really deploying 

the next generation 911 across the country, we are going to need 

more money, and that is why I have cosponsored the Next Generation 911 Act of 2017 with Representatives Eshoo and Torres, which 

paves the way for Congress to fully fund next generation 911. If 

that bill becomes the law, will the 911 office be prepared to administer such a larger grant program on schedule this time? 

Ms. KING. I look forward to working with you and with your staff 

to better understand the bill and how we would implement it. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. So I guess you figure you haven’t really studied it much so it is hard to answer, right? 

23 

Ms. KING. I am very excited in concept about improving our 911 

system. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. All right. NHTSA is also overdue to update 

the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP. NCAP is an important tool for incentivizing manufacturers to produce safer vehicles 

and for ensuring consumers can make informed decisions when 

purchasing a car. In 2015, NHTSA announced plans to update 

NCAP with valuable new information on vehicles’ crash avoidance 

technologies and their safety in crashes involving pedestrians, but 

these plans have been stalled for more than 2 years. So the question is, when will NHTSA finalize revisions to NCAP so that consumers have up-to-date safety information when shopping for cars? 

Ms. KING. At NHTSA, we are all very pleased that the NCAP 

program has offered so much both to consumers and to auto manufacturers to identify safety features in cars. We did propose and 

take comment on changes. We received comments that raised various views that need to be taken into consideration before moving 

forward, but we look forward to moving forward soon taking into 

account all comments received on that proposal. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I think NHTSA is overwhelmed, Ms. 

King. And yet President Trump’s budget request proposes a drop 

in funding for NHTSA’s operations in research from $179 million 

to $152 million. Do you agree that ensuring the safety of new and 

more complex technologies associated with autonomous vehicles 

places increased demands on NHTSA? 

Ms. KING. We believe that the President’s budget reflects the resources that we need to achieve our mission with responsible stewardship of Federal funds. 

Mr. PALLONE. So you don’t think that the proposed cuts to 

NHTSA’s operations and research budget makes it more difficult to 

adequately address the safety of new technologies like self-driving 

cars? 

Ms. KING. I believe the cut you are referring to was from a onetime bump up that we very much appreciated and that we applied 

to improving one of our IT systems, the Artemis system used in the 

defects organization. So we very much appreciate those funds. That 

work has been launched, and we are already benefiting from it, and 

we thank Congress for that support. But we do believe that the 

President’s budget does reflect the resources needed for us to succeed. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, all right. In fact, NHTSA’s 2016 budget identified a critical need for more staffing, noting that the Office of Defect Investigations had fewer than 20 investigators for 250 million 

vehicles equipped with increasingly complex technologies. But your 

2018 budget estimate actually proposes a cut to ODI’s funding. 

Now some safety hazards may decrease with the introduction of 

self-driving cars, but I think the potential for defects always exists. 

So I am confused by the proposal to cut ODI’s funding. How will 

you ensure that ODI has the resources it needs to go forward? And 

what are you doing to ensure that ODI defect investigators have 

the skills they need to assess new vehicle technology? 

Ms. KING. Two pieces. Again, the President’s budget does reflect 

the resources we believe that we need. We have, as I mentioned, 

system improvements we can benefit from. We are in the process 

24 

of hiring and recruiting additional engineers to assist us in defects 

investigations, but we are, through our new, more effective processes, doing the work of not only responding to reviewing each defect report that is received at NHTSA, but prioritizing according to 

risk and acting accordingly. Our systems revised in recent years 

allow us to assess the volume of complaints or notifications we receive. We assess, we categorize by risk, and act and move forward, 

and that helps us act more efficiently. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is hard not to say Heidi. Welcome back to the committee. It 

was nice to see you at the Detroit auto show last month. I don’t 

know if you got to some of other ones or not, but we appreciate you 

all in your interaction and look forward to continuing a very constructive relationship on a whole host of issues. 

I would first note that, last month, the U.S. Justice Department 

issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys handling civil litigation 

matters instructing them not to use Federal agency guidelines documents as a substitute for Federal law or regs. This follows the approach laid out by this committee when we passed the FAST Act 

back in 2015. I want to just say I applaud the Justice Department 

for following that approach that we laid out in the FAST Act, and 

I think that it strikes a much-needed balance between responsible 

oversight as well as unnecessary outreach. 

Two quick questions for you. One is I know you are aware of 

what I have introduced, the CAFE, H.R. 4011, which provides some 

harmonization between the agencies. Is it—I don’t know if the administration has taken a formal stand with the SAP, Statement of 

Administration Policy, on that bill. Probably not. But given the 

lack of harmonization between EPA and NHTSA’s programs, it is 

possible for companies to be in compliance with one program yet 

get hit with a large fine by the other. So our bill attempts to correct that. Have you considered that issue in any way administratively to resolve this before we get to that deadline, the big one? 

Ms. KING. Thank you very much, Chairman Upton. 

Yes, harmonization very important to all of us. We recognize the 

impact not only to manufacturers who are trying to comply with 

two different programs but also to the consumers, because, as we 

know, those costs borne by the manufacturers can influence what 

is available to and the pricing to the consumer. NHTSA is now 

working with the Environmental Protection Agency as we move forward on the CAFE rulemakings and streamlining and making sure 

harmonization is forefront is a part of that dialogue. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Where we are heading, autonomous vehicles. Again, you were in 

Detroit. I participated in a roundtable discussion with Chairman 

Latta there. It is the wave of the future. We are very excited for 

a whole host of reasons. 

One of the concerns that always pops up is the cyber protections, 

and not only on the monitors of the road for trucks and vehicles, 

but obviously just the applications—the normal applications of that 

25 

vehicle as they proceed. What type of resources do you have to 

make sure that the proper safeguards are in place so that things 

don’t go really off the road? 

Ms. KING. The laws and the operations and the systems we have 

at NHTSA apply to all vehicles, including automated driving systems. So, during a time of technological change, and granted this 

is a technological change larger than we have seen before, still we 

are responsible design, construction, and performance in a safety 

context for all of the vehicles in the United States. So our continued, whether it be reporting of defects, whether it be our monitoring of the technological change, our investigation of incidents related to any vehicle, including automated driving systems, we are 

vigilante. We have all of our tools in place, and we look forward 

to watching the technology involve to improve safety. 

Mr. UPTON. Do you feel like have you good cooperation with the 

industry themselves in terms of what they are proposing, what 

they have, and those tools that will be installed on those vehicles? 

Ms. KING. We have the voluntary safety self-assessment—there 

are two posted now it is manufacturer’s website. And we are now 

creating a dashboard at NHTSA where we will link to the manufacturer’s voluntary safety self-assessments. We are hearing, although other manufacturers have not yet published theirs, they are 

being produced and the opportunity to learn from one another and 

to have discussions around safety and incorporating safety into 

their design features is very much a part of our learning from one 

another so we step forward together. It also allows that dialogue 

with consumers and with state and local governments. That is absolutely critical. Again, this is where we need to stay together at 

the curve, not to get ahead of one another as the technology is still 

developing. 

Mr. UPTON. And I would just ask you if you are aware of some 

shortcomings with legislative ideas that you need to get through, 

please, please work with us. This has been a good bipartisan effort 

for a lot of years, and we look forward to have that type of relationship with you and the agency. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and for 

holding this important hearing. 

I am going to build on what my other colleagues have been talking about on the SELF DRIVE Act. When the committee came together in a bipartisan manner, and I think we are all very proud 

of the fact that it was unanimous, that we passed it out of this 

committee, it built on many of the ideas that DOT had laid out in 

the FAVP. We took the safety assessment letter and made it mandatory. We took the Department’s recommendation and enhanced 

the existing exemptions process so we could build the interim pathway to market for AVs while the new Federal motor vehicles safety 

standards are being written, but they need to be written, to make 

an editorial comment. And for the first time, we required manufacVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-98 CHRIS
26 

turers to submit plans to NHTSA for how they are addressing the 

critical issues of data security, privacy, and cybersecurity. 

But, Acting Administrator, I think what you are hearing today 

is unease on behalf of everybody, because we want to stay at the 

forefront of innovation and technology, and we also need to make 

sure that the consumer is safe at all times. You say you have got 

the tools, but we are not sure you have got the resources for the 

tools so that we are moving fast enough or we are doing what we 

need to do. Can you comment on the SELF DRIVE Act and how 

it complements existing DOT policy, NHTSA authority, and why 

you are going to assure us and, more importantly, the consumer 

that they are going to be safe, and you have got what you have got 

to do. 

Ms. KING. Yes. I am very happy to do so, very excited about the 

fact that we have echoed some of the similar ideas, the safety selfassessment, for example, being critical, not only to allow for the 

disclosure of the information, because as a good risk-management 

best practice, a safety self-assessment allows each of the manufacturers, each of us, as I will say state, local government, direct consumer, to consider safety and get smarter. So absolutely we love 

that, we love the fact that the expanded exceptions allows for the 

safe testing of vehicles because we won’t know if vehicles are safe 

unless we have testing so there are fantastic provisions in the bill 

that we look forward to continuing to work together on. We are excited about our shared mission of assuring safety while technology 

evolves—while we assure safety in step with technology. Again, the 

current authorities of NHTSA with respect to design, construction, 

and performance, we are on duty. We continue to follow closely the 

trends and the changes, both in the technology in what we are seeing on our roadways and the testing environment, and we look forward to working together. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. We all have so many questions. It is 

hard here in this 5 minutes, so I am going to move to the midterm 

review because I think my colleague from Michigan raised a subject 

that is very important. In order for our companies to make the investments they need to realize the benefits on AVs, we need to 

make sure this industry stays healthy, and fuel economy plays a 

big role in this. Strong fuel economy standards give the industry 

the certainty that they need while continuing to drive innovation 

that saves consumers money at the pump. Right now, we are entering a critical phase of the midterm review. I want to urge you, Deputy Administrator King, Deputy Administrator King, to keep all 

stakeholders at the table in a productive manner as we go through 

this so we can achieve a negotiated solution that maintains one national program that all my colleagues at this table can support. 

So I am going to beg you do that. And could you comment on that 

a little? And how do you feel about post-2025 standards? 

Ms. KING. Thank you for asking. It is very important to me—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. Just—— 

Ms. KING. That we hear from and keep all stakeholders in the 

dialogue. The CAFE standards, the greenhouse gas standards at 

EPA, our rulemaking that we are developing jointly, it is very important to all of us, not to only manufacturers and consumers but 

to the communities in which our vehicles operate. Very much enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-98 CHRIS
27 

courage all stakeholders to have their views heard. We look forward to an open and vigorous public comment period in particular. 

As you know, the rulemaking can be very complex. There is a great 

deal of analysis, engineering and economic, that is completed for 

that rulemaking under the applicable executive orders. We will 

continue, as NHTSA has always done, to be committed to a transparent process where that information is all publicly available, 

where anyone who would like to contribute can review and submit 

their thoughts on what they think can be done or should be done 

differently. It is very important for us to get it right. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Any comment on post-2025 standards in the 16 

seconds left? 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Under the laws applicable to NHTSA, under EPCA, we are authorized to set standards for 5 years at a time. So we must under 

the law set standards for 5-year increments. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning to you. 

I was pleased to hear your mention of NHTSA’s commitment to 

mitigating drugged-impaired driving. New Jersey, which I represent, is considering legalizing recreational marijuana. Can you 

discuss any trends that you have seen among traffic accidents in 

states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use? 

Ms. KING. Congressman Lance, thank you for that question. 

We don’t have strong, robust nationwide data yet, but I can 

share with you the nature of conversations I have had with some 

jurisdictions. They have already seen, prior to legalization of recreational use, increasing levels of THC in the blood of some of their 

drivers. We hope to see more of that information shared in our 

summit on March 15. 

At NHTSA we are very concerned because some of the evidence, 

which has been sent to Congress in our report to Congress on marijuana-impaired driving in June of last year, shows us that THC 

can lead to impairment, such as we see with alcohol. 

Many people, we have seen evidence, are using both THC products or marijuana and alcohol, making it more difficult for law enforcement to detect and discern which substance they are using, or 

has been used, and how they should prosecute. 

So we have many challenges ahead of us. We are very much committed not only to short-term, but to long-term strategies to combat 

the problem. 

Mr. LANCE. Are there tests that can determine if someone is 

under the influence of marijuana, similar to how the breathalyzer 

is used to detect impairment with alcohol? 

Ms. KING. The science is evolving. While I have seen several 

tests proposed, each test has its own strengths and weaknesses. 

And because the nature of the substance is different than alcohol, 

I will say, we have not evolved yet to the point where we have a 

certainty in the testing that we do with alcohol. But we hope to 

28 

stimulate further research as part of our initiative to address 

drugged-driving. 

Mr. LANCE. Would NHTSA be the Federal agency that would 

bring to the Nation’s attention some sort of test that would be dispositive regarding marijuana? 

Ms. KING. We would like to help, but of course there are many 

Federal and state agencies that are involved in this journey of discovery. We are working with toxicologists and with other scientists 

at other Federal agencies, but also at the state level. Again, some 

of the states have programs that have some learnings to share with 

us. 

So this is something where none of us are going to solve the 

problem alone, we are going to work together, both in the science 

community and in the public policy community. 

Mr. LANCE. Do the states have better tests in this regard, several 

of the states? 

Ms. KING. Well, for roadside, I don’t know that that is the case, 

but it is individual laboratories where I have met with scientists 

who are refining the protocols for testing blood levels. 

So science is developed not in one place, but across a committed 

community. And, again, that is why we are bringing everyone together, the experts, to share information with one another so we 

can identify best practices and gaps and move forward productively. 

Mr. LANCE. Would it be your agency that would take the lead in 

advising Congress what the potential increase in accidents, what 

that potential increase is in the various states that have attempted 

to legalize recreational marijuana? 

Ms. KING. We have information that could partially look at the 

sources of the increase in the states, but because we don’t have a 

nationwide system for collecting that information, it would be conjecture at this point. But I intend to set as the goal a nationwide 

collection of information that could inform that. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to work with 

you on this issue, as the Governor of New Jersey and our state legislature together debate the legalization of recreational the marijuana. I am opposed to such legalization of recreational use. 

Given the unprecedented scope and complexity of the Takata recall, can you please provide the committee with some of the lessons 

learned and how we might improve completion rates in future recalls? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. I would like to refer to the monitor report 

that was issued—and it is posted on our website—this past November. The independent monitor at Takata has completed, together 

with NHTSA, research to understand what is working and what is 

not. 

Consumer response, consumer awareness and action is part of 

the puzzle here. And we learned from the monitor that consumers 

hear the word ‘‘recall’’ or they hear the word ‘‘defect’’ and they don’t 

understand the sense of urgency. 

So one of the lessons learned is that not only reaching the consumers, but using language to help them understand the urgency 

of this recall is critical. 

29 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. And good luck to you in your important 

responsibilities. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. King, thank you for being here. 

Now, as we all know, NHTSA’s fuel economy standards for model 

years 2022 to 2025 were originally set in 2012. In July 2016, 

NHTSA and EPA released a joint technical report finding that the 

standards in 2012 remain appropriate and that compliance would 

be easier and less costly to achieve than originally anticipated 

using a wide range of existing technologies. 

In other words, there is clear data-driven support for maintaining existing standards and even making them more stringent. 

Now, my time is limited and I have lots of questions, so I would 

appreciate it if you would stick to brief yes-or-no responses, a` la 

John Dingell. 

Are you still planning to release a proposed rule by March 30 to 

finalize the 2022 through 2025 standards? 

Ms. KING. I would like to answer yes or no, but if I could clarify, 

we will propose, not finalize, but as required by law, we will propose, and yes, March 30. 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. OK. Given the findings of the joint NHTSA and 

EPA technical report, will the proposed rule set out fuel economy 

standards that are at least as stringent as those promulgated in 

2012? 

Ms. KING. We would be able to announce that at the proposal. 

At this time we are engaged in the analysis—— 

Ms. MATSUI. So you don’t know whether it is yes or no right now. 

Ms. KING. Yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Is that correct? 

Ms. KING. That is correct. 

Ms. MATSUI. It has been reported that the rule may also revisit 

the fuel economy standard for model year 2021, but your correspondence to the committee dated January 9 states that your 

proposed standard is for light vehicles model year 2022 through 

2025. Yes or no, will 2021 be included? 

Ms. KING. I wouldn’t be able to address the rulemaking in 

progress at this time, and I am afraid I haven’t seen that report. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. You haven’t? Oh, OK. We will send it to you. 

Are you changing the model NHTSA uses to calculate fuel efficiency? 

Ms. KING. NHTSA always strives to keep its modeling updated 

and current, including the inputs and the data and improving econometric methods. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Some have claimed that adjustments to the 

2022 to 2025 standards are needed because consumers are buying 

larger vehicles, like SUVs and light trucks, rather than compact 

cars and electric vehicles. 

Again, yes-or-no responses, please. Aren’t fuel economy standards 

based on the size or footprint of the vehicle sold? So a light truck 

30 

does not need to achieve the same miles per gallon as a compact 

car, correct? 

Ms. KING. The fleet-wide average does include consideration of 

footprints. 

Ms. MATSUI. Doesn’t that mean that the exact mix of trucks and 

smaller cars that a manufacturer already sells is already factored 

in? You said yes to that, right? 

Ms. KING. Manufacturers produce to meet consumer demand for 

different types of vehicles for different purposes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Fleet-wide target. So couldn’t a company meet its 

fleet-wide target selling only SUVs, as long as they meet the fuel 

economy standard for the SUV footprint? Yes or no? 

Ms. KING. I would have to think about the math, because they 

need to meet a fleet-wide average. 

Ms. MATSUI. So you are not sure right now? 

Ms. KING. I would have to think about that. I have not seen a 

manufacturer choose to do so. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. We will check on that, too. 

Let me just say this. It is very important that NHTSA continue 

to engage with the autonomous vehicle innovation that is taking 

place across the country. As part of NHTSA’s second AV guidance, 

you put forward a template for AV developers to commit a safety 

self-assessment. How many safety self-assessments has NHTSA received? 

Ms. KING. We don’t ask manufacturers to send them to us. We 

ask them to disclose them. 

Ms. MATSUI. So you don’t have any idea of numbers at all? 

Ms. KING. I am aware of two, but we do not ask them to be submitted. They are not a document submitted to NHTSA. We ask 

that they be made public. And we are aware of two, which we have 

linked on our website. We have created a dashboard so that we can 

make it easier for—— 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. So you are only aware of two right now? 

Ms. KING. That is right. 

Ms. MATSUI. What has NHTSA learned? Have you learned anything from these assessments at all, from the two? 

Ms. KING. I have, actually. I learned that it is very important for 

us all to be in dialogue on this issue. I think each of the manufacturers is considering safety and would like to engage with others 

in learning from one another. So I see that we are in this journey 

together. 

Ms. MATSUI. Good. OK. I understand that this intention is to increase collaboration and build the public trust for AVs, which I 

strongly support. And I really believe that, as most people here on 

the committee believe, which is really important, that safety is 

number one. 

The AV situation is getting so much, now, attention that I think 

there is a sense out there that the thought is that it may be safer 

than we think it is. So I really feel strongly that we should keep 

emphasizing safety and any time we talk about AVs safety is emphasized. 

And I really think that if NHTSA has only received two as far 

as the assessments that we are talking about, as far as building 

public trust, I feel that we need to encourage more, I think, collaboVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-98 CHRIS
31 

ration as far as conversation. I think we need to have more public 

comment on this and a sense of understanding where this all is. 

So anyway, I truly believe in this, in the midterm evaluation 

also, when we are talking about autonomous vehicles, we really 

need vigorous conversation and debate. So thank you very much for 

being here. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Welcome back to the committee. I appreciate it very much. Actually, Mr. Lance, my friend from New Jersey, hit a lot of the issues 

that I was going to talk about, and I look forward to the results 

of your roundtable and meeting on drugged driving. 

As the move to recreational use of marijuana is moving down the 

road, there are a lot of serious issues, and hopefully we can bring 

it to the attention of people. It is not just as simple as a lot of people want to make it out to be. There are a lot of issues that need 

to be addressed. 

But I will go to another interesting topic, tire wear, since you 

have already addressed that. So in the next 12 months what 

progress does the Department anticipate toward implementing the 

tire performance standards for fuel efficiency and wet traction? 

Ms. KING. Very good. We have research underway, and so I expect we will have something, hopefully soon, because we are in fact 

reviewing some of that research now. But we have several initiatives related to tires that are underway at NHTSA. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Also, I believe you are launching into the webbased tire recall search tool. Do you know when that should be 

launched? 

Ms. KING. I would be happy to provide more information. I will 

say, it is not an area in which I have the level of detail I would 

like to provide you. I would like to make sure we get correct information to you. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thanks. 

Also, in September of last year NHTSA released new guidance 

for self-driving vehicles. And a very proud and great Kentuckian, 

Secretary Chao, announced the agency is working on a version 3.0. 

Can you explain the approach 3.0 will take and version 2.0 will 

interplay with the new guidance? So let me get back. Can you 

please explain the approach 3.0 will take in version 2.0 interplay 

with the new guidance? 

Ms. KING. I am very excited to explain that. 

Version 2.0 focused very much on automated driving systems in 

consumer cars, in cars, whereas 3.0 will be multimodal. 

I will tell you what 3.0 will not do. It will not change, for example, the voluntary safety self-assessments that Congresswoman 

Matsui was just discussing. We still expect manufacturers to provide voluntary safety self-assessments as described in 2.0. 3.0 will 

expand the discussion to include other modes of transportation. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

32 

Can you please highlight significant dates moving forward with 

respect to the Takata recall that we and our constituents should 

be aware of? And when do you expect the recall to be complete? 

Ms. KING. We have posted on our website at NHTSA the dates 

when various ages or various risk categories of airbags will be recalled. Right now, the date that is top of mind is now. Because of 

the urgency of the recall announced on Monday with certain 2006 

Ford vehicles, I would urge every consumer to check our website 

and know whether they have one of most airbags, safe, save thousands of lives every year, or the ones that are not safe. 

I would like consumers to check, and if they are not getting the 

information they need from their dealership, to contact NHTSA immediately. The sense of urgency cannot be overstated with respect 

to vehicles covered by the Do Not Drive order. Any assistance in 

communicating that with your constituents would be greatly appreciated. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. 

I have a minute left, and maybe this is something that is not 

your expertise, but I was wondering, as Mr. Lance was talking, my 

understanding is that when—back to drugged-driving—that if 

somebody is pulled over and they are tested and they have the 

blood alcohol content that makes—they can prosecute, that is not 

tested for drugs, because you don’t need both for impaired driving. 

That might be something in your roundtable to discuss just for 

the information, understand that if somebody is impaired, they are 

impaired, but it would be nice to know how much of the drug is 

in the system as well. 

And I guess the question I was going to ask you, you might not 

know, it might not be your expertise, but if someone is druggeddriving, there is no alcohol, they are drugged-driving, they are impaired, so somebody gets pulled over for crossing a line or whatever 

like would typically tip off an officer, would they fail a field sobriety test? 

I know most of it is breathalyzers and blood that goes to court, 

but you get there first by not being able to touch your nose or 

standing on one foot or whatever, the stuff that says you are just 

not capable of driving. Does somebody that is drugged-driving on 

marijuana, would they fail—not opioids, but marijuana—fail that? 

Ms. KING. I am drawing now upon my little known background. 

I was in law enforcement 30 years ago when I was in much better 

physical shape than I am today. 

We have at the state level different laws in different parts of the 

county, and so how the laws are categorized is different by state. 

I was a law enforcement officer in California, and I have spoken 

with people there and can describe that a little bit. 

Impaired driving is illegal. Impaired driving is not only a risk to 

health and safety, but it is illegal in most of the country. 

When an officer identifies an impaired driver, an officer is very 

experienced and well-trained in the fairly familiar pattern of identifying an alcohol-impaired driver. 

We have a number of tools to train and prepare officers to assess 

for drug impairment, but there are so many different drugs. Sometimes people are taking drugs together or with alcohol, which then 

33 

confuses the symptoms and makes it harder for the officer to identify what exactly he is dealing with. 

So, yes, I think every officer in the United States is very likely 

to be trained rigorously in alcohol-impaired driving. We have the 

ARIDE program and DRE programs that provide that expertise 

with respect to drug-impairment identification. It is not universal 

across the Nation, however. 

In addition to identifying the signs and symptoms of impairment 

in a driver, we also have the challenge of prosecuting. So the officers collecting information at a vehicle stop that he will use—he or 

she, in my case—that I would use in providing information to prosecute, the critical step in how to use that information in prosecuting when we don’t have the legal framework, maybe we don’t 

have the field test that we have for alcohol, those are all things 

that don’t exist yet in a rigorous way across the country. 

But the good news, there are certain jurisdictions that have innovated. The County of Orange in California has combined forces, law 

enforcement and the district attorney’s office and the laboratories, 

to figure out how they can make the pieces work together and develop best practices. They are now training other parts of the state, 

and hopefully soon the country. 

So we aren’t as good at it as we are with alcohol, but I know we 

can get better quickly, and we will learn a lot, and we can conquer 

this problem together. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. Thank you. And I am here to support what you guys are trying to do. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman’s time has now expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and I would also 

like to thank Ranking Member Schakowsky for having this National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hearing. I appreciate 

this opportunity. 

And thank you, Deputy Administrator King, for coming today 

and answering our questions. I am happy to be addressing a fellow 

Californian. 

And could you help us clarify, what is the status of the Department getting a new administrator? How is that coming along? Can 

you update us? 

Ms. KING. The President has not yet identified a nominee, but 

I look forward to learning also who my new boss will be. Meanwhile, the Department does have a strong leader, and that leader 

is here before you today, ready for your questions. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Now, your status right now is Deputy Administrator. At one time you were acting administrator? 

Ms. KING. That is right. Under the Vacancies Act, the title acting 

administrator is only allowed under for a certain period of time. 

However, as Deputy Administrator, I do fill all of the functions of 

the administrator. So I am essentially acting as acting, although 

the title is not applied under the Vacancies Act. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And how long has the Department been without 

an administrator? 

34 

Ms. KING. There has not been an administrator nominated in the 

administration. I have been there since September 25. I am halfway through my 20th week. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So it was January 21 of 2017, or when was 

it that the actual administrator position was vacant? 

Ms. KING. That is right, January of last year. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Ms. KING. We have had in place acting as deputy our executive 

director, who is an outstanding professional with years of experience in transportation, and an outstanding, strong team, and of 

course the leadership of the Department of Transportation. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Now, having a permanent administrator would 

be helpful to the Department as a whole, right? Hopefully we will 

see that soon? 

Ms. KING. I look forward to hearing the President’s nomination. 

I understand that there is a great deal of work ahead of us. 

But there is a team that is strong. I believe I am a strong leader. 

And I look forward to working with you. 

So hopefully neither you nor the public will feel any difference 

whether or not it is myself acting as administrator or whether it 

is myself serving my new boss when the President identifies the 

nominee and that nominee is confirmed. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes, I certainly respect that that is within the 

full purview of the President. However, we do have tremendous responsibilities—I will outline some of them right now—within that 

Department. 

There is no question that NHTSA has a tremendous opportunity 

to shape the safe implementation of highly autonomous vehicles in 

the next few years. The United States is on the brink of an important change in how we own and interact with vehicles. 

As stewards of traffic safety, NHTSA has the responsibility to 

work with Congress to make sure that these next steps are taken 

in a safe manner. But any guidance or regulation we develop of the 

Federal level inevitably impacts state and local regulations, so we 

must make sure that what we do in Washington, D.C., is responsive to what our officials back home are going to have to deal with 

at the state and local level. 

I used to be in the California State Assembly and also on the 

L.A. City Council, so I have experienced firsthand what it is like 

when Federal policy works well and when it does not. 

During the development of the SELF DRIVE Act that was passed 

in the House last year, I was particularly interested in making 

sure that the legislation ensured collaboration with our counterparts at the state and local level. The bill includes legislation I introduced to form a Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council at 

NHTSA with a diverse group of members, including from state and 

local authorities. 

The bill passed the House and we hope that the Senate will take 

it up soon. But in the meantime, what is NHTSA doing to make 

sure that states and localities are involved in the development of 

autonomous vehicle guidance and rulemaking? 

Ms. KING. We are communicating a lot. I am very much honored 

to work with my state partners. I agree with you, it is critical that 

35 

we work together and learn from one another and that we not be 

developing things in a vacuum without consultation. 

As I had mentioned earlier, two-thirds of our budget is in fact 

grant moneys with states, both because of our behavioral programs 

together, but also because of the challenges that we confront together, not only with drugged-driving, but with emerging technologies. 

We are at all levels in frequent discussion with the states. Myself, also being someone from the field, also from the West, which 

can sometimes feel distant from Washington, D.C., I know those 

flights feel long some days. It is a constant dialogue and we are 

very sensitive to the views of our state partners. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Ms. King, what keeps you from being a candidate 

to be the permanent administrator? 

Ms. KING. That is very kind of you to ask. The President will 

make his choice, and I will defer to his choice. I look forward to 

having—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. But on a strict basis, there is no qualification scenario that would prevent you from being nominated, correct? 

Ms. KING. I do not—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Now, just for those watching in the White House, 

I don’t want them to think that you are soliciting that position. 

Mr. LATTA. He is trying to be very diplomatic. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I know. But technically speaking, there is nothing right now that would preclude you from being a nominee on a 

technical basis, correct? 

Ms. KING. I certainly don’t believe there is anything as stringent 

as the peace officer standards and training of jumping over a 6-foot 

wall, as I did many years ago in the State of California to become 

a law enforcement officer. 

But, honestly, Congressman Ca ́ rdenas, that is not a question 

that I have addressed because it is not my area of expertise nor 

my responsibility. But I would be happy to get back to you with 

more detail on that. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Nor is it a comfortable place to be. I didn’t mean 

to embarrass you. 

Ms. KING. Oh, no, no, no. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. But I just wanted to make sure that there was 

nothing that precluded that from happening. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Administrator, for being here today. 

I heard earlier you say several times that you didn’t have enough 

data to answer some of the questions, particularly about drug-related accidents. 

And now that it has been revealed that some, what was the statistic, 43 percent of fatal accidents in 2015 were drug-related, as 

compared to 37 percent alcohol-related, my curiosity is how that relates—we may not have the answer here, as you are saying. 

36 

What is happening in Europe and elsewhere around the world? 

Are they finding similar to that? Because the reports I have gotten 

from Europe is that alcohol is still by far the prevalent cause of accidents, not drugs. What is bringing that about in the United 

States? 

Ms. KING. There are two parts to that question, if I understood 

your question, Congressman McKinley. One of them is what we are 

seeing in Europe and one of them is what we are seeing here? Did 

I understand correctly? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. What can we learn from Europe? That Europe has been able to get control so that its drug is not the drugrelated preponderant amount of accidents caused by drugs, but 

ours has been logarithmically increasing. What are they doing right 

or we doing wrong? 

Ms. KING. There are many dimensions to that. It is, I will say, 

not an area of formal publication at NHTSA, but I can speak to my 

own experience and knowledge, which is that, first of all, the use 

of drugs, in particular illicit drugs, tends to be regional, even within the United States. 

And the second is that the use of transportation may also be very 

regional. In Europe we often see communities that have a different 

relationship with their infrastructure. They may be more walkable, 

more drivable, there are lower rates of car ownership and higher 

rates of public transit use. So there may be more alternatives available. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I would like to pursue that further with you. But 

also in your role that you have been with the Department, and now 

in your role as the deputy, what keeps you up at night? What do 

you think is the biggest problem you are facing for the administration? 

Ms. KING. The thing that keeps me up at night is how to help 

consumers understand the risks of the airbags that are on the Do 

Not Drive recall issued on Monday. It is very important that consumers understand whether or not they have a safe, lifesaving airbag in their car. Again, the lifesaving airbags save thousands of 

lives per year, but there are some few that can injure and they can 

maim and they can kill. 

And we have consumers who may be unaware. The fact that 

many of these vehicles are older means that the consumers may 

not be as likely to have a relationship with their dealership or with 

the auto manufacturer. 

We have been working with the manufacturers in their outreach 

to the consumers, and we are finding different ways to reach consumers. But what keeps me up at night is that there may be people 

who don’t know, they are not understanding the urgency of the Do 

Not Drive recall. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

The final question is, I think it was your answer back to Mr. 

Guthrie, I think it opened some curiosity on my part, which is the 

mechanics. It is one thing when someone is driving the car down 

the road and they could be tested for alcohol when they are impaired, they are weaving. 

37 

If they are weaving and they are drug-related and pulled over, 

the only test I heard was a blood test. We are certainly not going 

to do a blood test on someone on the highway. 

What is the mechanical part? An officer is assuming someone is 

impaired and he pulls them over but there is no testing device. Do 

they allow them to continue? Do they give them a warning? Or do 

they stop them if they feel in their heart they are impaired because 

of drugs? What happens mechanically? 

Ms. KING. I believe that may differ regionally, depending on the 

officer’s training. I can assure you that at NHTSA we have research underway in our research program in our behavioral division—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. What is happening now? The drugs are out 

there. We are having problems right now. 

Ms. KING. I understand. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Are they releasing them to continue driving? 

Ms. KING. Some forms of impairment are very similar to alcohol, 

even though they may have other causes, and that certainly would 

be captured by the standard field sobriety tests that officers are 

using today. 

Officers collect evidence of impairment and take that information. The field sobriety tests that are used today would identify 

signs of impairment. Although designed for alcohol, they could detect other forms of impairment. 

But we are working on research to identify field sobriety tests 

that can be used for other substances to determine whether there 

is even a difference. It is an emerging area. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I hear you. I am dealing with the today, the now. 

I am just curious about whether it is going to hold up in court if 

we don’t have any background on this, how that is going to hold 

up a year from now. 

Ms. KING. I think I am going to have some good news for you, 

because my conversations with the geographies that are getting 

ahead of this, they are some great successes. And I am looking forward to learning more about them and making sure that we all can 

learn from them and adopt their best practices. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Deputy Administrator. 

Following up on my colleague and good friend from West Virginia, what keeps me up at night is that I get these cards about 

that I need to take them into my dealer and nobody can repair 

them. And so what are we going to do? Is it some reason, that 

maybe the dealers are not getting reimbursed, or is it just that 

they don’t have the—to be able to fix these airbags that are in our 

current vehicles? 

Ms. KING. When a car owner is asked to come and have the replacement, there should be adequate supply. There should be adequate supply of airbags to replace any unsafe airbags. 

38 

I would like anyone who does not hear from their dealership that 

they can get the active recall remediated immediately to contact 

NHTSA at 888–327–4236. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. So there is a way we can do that. Because like 

I said, it is almost like a joke sometimes. My constituents say, ‘‘I 

will get that. But I call and there is no one available. And then I 

will get another card 5 months later and they are still not available.’’ 

But they are supposed to be available to our dealerships? 

Ms. KING. Because this is the largest and most complex automotive recall in history, we are staging by risk. So it may be that 

they are receiving a notification that there will later be a request 

for them to come in. But the vehicles that need to have a replacement now, there is a supply available. There should be supply 

available. If not, contact NHTSA immediately. 

Mr. GREEN. Is there on your website a list of those particular vehicles? 

Ms. KING. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Is there a requirement to send out that card for 

something that is immediately like that, instead of someday we 

will get our new airbags? 

Ms. KING. I have one of those cards, too, and my airbag has already been replaced. 

So, again, 50 million airbags, it is such a large and complex program. 

Mr. GREEN. I know. 

Ms. KING. I understand the efforts to notify may have created 

confusion in some. But www.nhtsa.gov/recall, enter the VIN, folks 

can find out. 

Every time I got to my dealer, I ask them, ‘‘Are you sure?’’ So 

I know that the dealerships are also very attentive to this. 

But I encourage people to reach out to NHTSA, to call us, and 

to make sure that they are speaking with their dealership and taking care of the problem. 

And I am delighted to hear that you and your constituents are 

attentive to the issue. As I mentioned, what keeps me up at night 

is that people aren’t aware. 

Mr. GREEN. And I will share the NHTSA website and we will put 

it on. I hope other members, too, that have the same problem. 

My other question is, in 2015 Representative Mullin and I sponsored a provision on the FAST Act that allows small volume car 

companies to produce up to 325 replica cars in a year for the U.S. 

market and 5,000 for the export market. These are brand new vehicles that look like vintage cars, like classic Cobras, Mustangs. 

And in our area, I have a DeLorean factory in my district, and 

that is why I was interested in that bill because the owner of that 

DeLorean inventory said, ‘‘We could actually expand this probably 

with 120 more employees.’’ 

In Texas, we don’t do a lot of car manufacturing up in the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth area, so I would like to have them in our district. 

NHTSA had until December 2016 to issue any necessary regulations needed to allow these companies to start producing replica vehicles, the only assessing regulation allowing companies to register 

with NHTSA and file an annual report. 

39 

These companies have already made sizable investments and are 

ready to go to work. It is important that they are able to register 

with NHTSA in the production immediately in accordance with the 

law. I would ask you, when is that going to happen? 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

If I, first of all, may thank you for your letter in the fall. I was 

pleased have your letter and pleased to a reply. 

We have looked into using guidance, but we have a rulemaking 

coming out this year. And so I look forward to hearing your constituents and others to comment on that rulemaking. We should 

see that by summer. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. So by the summer of 2018? 

Ms. KING. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 

of his time. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate it very much. 

Ms. King, I introduced H.R. 3413, which was eventually rolled 

into the SELF DRIVE Act, which brings stakeholders together to 

ensure we maximize mobility benefits for senior citizens. How do 

you see self-driving vehicles improving the lives of senior citizens? 

Ms. KING. Thank you for your question. 

I think we all understand, not only the safety benefits, but we 

are very, very excited about the opportunity to add mobility to certain communities as a result of the innovative technologies. 

The aging community, of which I am slowly becoming a part, is 

clearly one of the communities that can benefit from self-driving 

cars, or forgive me, automated driving systems. So we look forward 

to seeing the technologies evolve safely and test safely so that we 

can see that mobility and safety promise come to our streets. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Thank you. 

Next question. Given the significant mobility benefits of self-driving cars, you just mentioned that, how is NHTSA focusing on these 

certain segments of our population, such as those with disabilities? 

Ms. KING. In the context of automated driving systems specifically? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. 

Ms. KING. Very good. So in our discussions of the automated 

driving system promise, we are hosting many dialogues and taking 

comments to understand not only the benefits, but the concerns. 

In particular, one of the things the research tells us, and I think 

many of us read this in the newspaper reports, is that consumers 

have questions and concerns about the emerging technology. That 

is not surprising because the technology is emerging and it is very 

hard for us all of us to understand a thing we haven’t experienced 

or seen yet. 

40 

So we are in dialogue with many of the manufacturers. Part of 

that dialogue is, as described in A Vision for Safety 2.0, to help us 

all understand where the sources of confusion are. 

We find that terminology may be one of them. We all use different terms. A moment ago I used a term I shouldn’t have, I said 

self-driving car. We speak about automated driving systems. 

But there are so many terms out there, right, level three, level 

four, self-driving car, driverless car, automated driving system. 

Even the terminology is confusing. It is confusing to me at times. 

We need to make sure we are adopting a common set of terminology that makes it easier for us to have meaningful, rich discussion with our communities, with state and local governments, as 

well as with manufacturers. 

So this is one of the things we are learning, that as the technology develops we all need to circle up on some of the terminology 

so we have more effective dialogue together as the technology 

evolves safely. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So do you envision a person, let’s say a senior or 

someone with disabilities, like myself, I have visual difficulties, 

having access to an automated car, instead of a self-driving car, in 

the near future? How far are we from something like that? Now, 

something that is affordable, obviously. 

Ms. KING. If there is one thing I learned during my time as a 

research scientist at the old Bell Labs, is that the development of 

technology goes at the pace it needs to go. So I would be hesitant 

to forecast, because what consumers will adopt, what the technology is ready for in a safe deployment or safe development path, 

is something that is very difficult to predict. 

Certainly, it is my hope that the technology is safely tested and 

deployed to provide the access to mobility for all members of our 

community. But at NHTSA, as the leader of NHTSA, I am committed to making sure that the testing and deployment is safe and 

that we have an effective dialogue to ensure that that is so. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Of course safety is more important than anything. 

Let’s see. I know you touched upon the opioid issue, so I will go 

on to the next question. 

Can you please explain how consumers can determine whether 

they are affected by a recall? And I know that Representative 

Green touched on this as well. But if you could expand, I would, 

please, because this is very informative for our constituents. 

Again, can you please explain how consumers can determine 

whether they are affected by a recall and offer other recommendations as to what consumers should do if they find themselves affected by a recall? 

Ms. KING. Thank you for asking. Www.nhtsa.gov, that is our 

website, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

www.nhtsa.gov. 

One will see there, right at the top of our web page, a recalls 

banner. One can click and go in and enter a vehicle identification 

number and see any outstanding recalls on one’s vehicle. 

I routinely check it. I have become clearly much more sensitive 

to the urgency of recalls since I have been at NHTSA. One can 

enter one’s email address and get an alert to remain always current on outstanding recalls. 

41 

For those who may not have a computer or feel comfortable doing 

so, a consumer can call the dealership, they can call the manufacturer, and they can have it checked. I do use a dealership for my 

own car, and I find it helpful that they keep a file, and they will 

tell me whether or not there is anything outstanding. And they can 

describe it to me if I have any questions. 

But the key is that consumers find out whether or not they have 

an outstanding recall, and if it is an urgent recall or any recall 

they should act. But in particular the Do Not Drive recalls announced on Monday are absolutely critical. Do not drive. Call the 

dealership. A tow truck will come. The recall remedy is free. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Give us the number, again, please, for those who 

are watching. 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. Let’s see, where did I put it? I looked up 

from my piece of paper. 

I would like, if you don’t mind, if we could post it on your 

website. I would recommend people go to www.nhtsa.gov. And I 

seem to have misplaced phone number, in my sense of urgency that 

consumers find out about the recalls outstanding on their vehicles. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. And we want to put that 

on our websites as well so that consumers can have access. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So thank you very much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here as well. Thank you 

for your work. Thank you for your service. 

I am going to ask you to touch on a couple of different 

rulemakings that I believe NHTSA was supposed to have begun 

and just ask for an update on that process if I can. 

So, first off, with regard to tires. The FAST Act mandated that 

NHTSA write a rule to ensure that tire pressure monitoring systems cannot be overridden, reset, or recalibrated in such a way 

that the system will no longer detect when inflation pressure has 

fallen below a significantly underinflated level. NHTSA has yet to 

take any action on that requirement. 

So, Ms. King, I was hoping you could shed some light on when 

NHTSA will issue a final rule on that tire pressure monitoring system. 

Ms. KING. Congressman Kennedy, we have begun work on all requirements in the FAST Act, including the tire rules. It is on our 

regulatory agenda. We are making progress forward, and we look 

forward to taking next steps as described in our regulatory agenda. 

I believe we have a proposed rule step before we go to the final rule 

step. And I look forward to discussing that with you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And, ma’am, do you have any—I realize I am putting you on the spot a little bit here—do you have any idea, is that 

months, is that how many months? How long until we think we are 

getting to that process? 

42 

Ms. KING. I would like to consult the regulatory agenda and send 

you the date that we have currently scheduled. I, myself, have been 

receiving information about that rulemaking, and, I will say, becoming smarter about the requirements in the tire pressure monitoring system rulemaking. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. KING. So I know it is something under active discussion, not 

only from us, but from those interested parties. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So if your staff could follow up with that, I would 

appreciate it. Thank you. 

Similarly, with the seatbelt reminder rulemaking, MAP-21 required that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require 

rear seatbelt reminder systems. Again, my understanding is that 

NHTSA has not taken any public action on that statutory mandate, 

and, in fact, the agency has been sued by safety advocates for its 

failure to take action. 

Can you bring us up to date on whether NHTSA has initiated a 

rulemaking proceeding on the rear seatbelt reminders? 

Ms. KING. Again, I would be happy to follow up with you on the 

date, consulting the regulatory agenda. It is clearly very important 

to us to protect all occupants of the car. Many of the rulemakings 

addressing vehicle safety, we do research before we issue a final 

rulemaking to make sure we consider any unintended consequences 

of the rulemaking. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So, Ms. King, has the process started on that yet, 

or is it underway? Where are we in it? 

Ms. KING. I would be happy to send more information about the 

status. I will say, unlike the tire pressure monitoring system, I personally have not been engaged in some of the technical details. But 

I also have a large team that work very diligently on all of the requirements under the FAST Act. I know work has been initiated 

on all of them. And I am happy to provide more detail about the 

stage of the work. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. I would appreciate that. 

Finally, the vehicle-to-vehicle rulemaking. NHTSA has issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking for vehicle-to-vehicle communications in January of last year with comments due in April of last 

year. This rulemaking is particularly anticipated by many stakeholders. We have heard from a number of those stakeholders that 

their plans are on hold until a final rule is issued. 

Can you give us any guidance as to what the timeline might be 

for that as well? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. I think we share an enthusiasm for the 

safety benefits that vehicle-to-vehicle technologies can offer. 

We received, as you know, a large number of comments, very 

technical comments on the proposed rulemaking, which we are 

going through now. 

The comments had, first of all, technical matter and diverse comments. So we look forward to learning from them. And we certainly 

hope that the dedicated spectrum will, in fact, be reserved and applied to vehicle safety technologies. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So I appreciate that, and obviously safety being a 

primary concern. If I can push you a little bit here. Again, months? 

43 

How many? Where are we? Do you want to follow up again? Kind 

of how long, what does that timeframe look like? 

Ms. KING. We have a commitment to safety and to getting it 

right. When it comes to complex technologies with a safety relationship, I would commit that we get it right and then we move forward in a way that doesn’t pick winners and losers, but in fact is 

going to optimize the vehicle safety opportunity to the American 

public. 

It is difficult to put a timeline on getting it right, particularly 

with technical matter, but you have my commitment to work with 

your staff, to remain engaged, to hear from stakeholders, and make 

sure that we move forward in a way that assures safety in the best 

possible manner with respect to vehicle-to-vehicle technologies. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I have got one last question, but given 

the time, I will happily submit that for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. King, for your service. 

I think one of the things, I will just make a general comment, 

what you are hearing today, and you are well aware of this, is that 

at Federal agencies it is not necessarily about the money, it is bureaucracy, right? And you have seen the level of frustration of 

Members of Congress on both sides. 

What can be controversial about knowing whether there is a 

child left in the back seat of a car, right, and have some notification of that? The only controversy is how much it is going to cost 

to put it in the cars, right? We all know that. 

So it is a frustrating thing because, if I had a dime for every time 

I hear from Federal agencies—this is not to you personally—that 

we are in the process, legal is looking at it, and this, I wouldn’t 

have to have a job. I would have enough dimes to not have a job. 

So I just want you to know and the public to know that there 

is a high level of frustration amongst not only NHTSA, but other 

agencies. And since this is about safety, and I was a physician before and others on this committee are concerned about safety, the 

level of frustration is pretty high, especially when we hear this in 

hearings across the spectrum. 

These rules need to be out there, they need to be done more 

quickly, not only for safety reasons, but to give an efficient regulatory framework for industry. 

So in that vein, with the CAFE standards, for example, and EPA 

hasn’t indicated a timeline for their revised final determination or 

subsequent proposed rulemaking, I think in the interest of efficiency regulatory framework, we need to get going on this. And so 

I don’t expect you to comment on that. 

The one thing is I am interested in the line of questioning about 

THC. I was a physician. There is evidence to show that chronic 

THC use in the developing brain, for example, young people, all the 

way into their mid- to late twenties, has long-term cognitive 

changes. 

44 

And so in that vein, for recreational use, I am against legalization, although there are specific potential medical reasons for having THC available, although it is usually the CBD oil, the CBD extract that actually has the medical benefit. 

It seems to me that we need to work more quickly on determining a national standard and what constitutes impairment as it 

relates to THC. We have states legalizing recreational marijuana, 

and that is their right. But the Federal level, as you know, it is 

still a Schedule I drug. 

So I am interested, you said there is a roundtable discussion 

among Federal agencies on this issue. But we need to do more than 

that. What are your thoughts? We need like a serious working 

group that meets to try to determine a legal standard. 

There is a field sobriety test. People beat that in court. You just 

get a lawyer and you go to court and you say, ‘‘There is no scientific 

evidence I was impaired,’’ and you question the integrity of the officers or whatever you do, right? And you can win that. You can’t 

do that if you have a blood alcohol level or you blow into a 

breathalyzer and it says you are 0.1. You can do that. 

And so what are your thoughts on that? How do we get to the 

0.08 in some states? What was the process of getting to determining, hey, if you have more than that when you blow a 

breathalyzer, you are impaired? 

Ms. KING. Responding to your question about the drugged-impaired driving initiative, I absolutely agree, there should be more. 

The meeting we have on March 15 is meant to be a summit. We 

are calling it a call to action. It is a call to action. It is not the only 

action. 

What our goal is with the drug-impaired driving initiative is to 

set a strategy, to set a path, and to articulate a vision of what good 

looks like to answer exactly the questions that you are describing. 

We have in place a framework and a system for alcohol-impaired 

driving, and we do not have that level—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Right. But how did we get there with alcohol? 

Ms. KING. How did we get there with alcohol? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. 

Ms. KING. I was not a part of that process. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I know, it has been decades, right? 

Ms. KING. Right. So I look forward to having best practices from 

that dialogue. Many of the experts we are bringing into the summit 

on March 15 are those who have been engaged in this discussion 

for some time. So I look forward to learning from them and to sharing those learnings out. 

But you have my commitment that as part of the drug-impaired 

driving initiative, we will be considering all forms of impairment 

and we will be thinking how can we leverage the learnings of the 

alcohol-impaired driving experience, expand them to drug impairment, and make sure that everybody understands any form of impaired driving, drug or alcohol—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. We just need a national legal standard, law enforcement and the courts. If you go and you refuse a drug test, 

whatever, if you refuse a breathalyzer, whatever, we need a legal 

test. 

45 

And I just don’t see that happening at the state level because 

they don’t have the resources to determine that. Even though ultimately they may decide where they want to be on this. 

It just seems like time is a factor here. We should have been 

doing this decades ago. 

The reality is, in my opinion as a medical professional, a lot of 

these things, it is based on money, right? It is just based on, if we 

determine that here is this legal standard for THC, then we are 

going to get pushed back from states that have legalized it because 

a bunch of their people are going to be getting arrested for impaired driving, and that is just the way it is going to be. 

With that, Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, apologize for not being here. We do have another hearing 

going on upstairs. I apologize, Ms. King, if this has already been 

asked. 

Obviously, you and Dr. Bucshon were discussing the issue of impaired drivers. I am from a state that has not legalized marijuana, 

but I recognize that other states have, and so this is a concern that 

is, I think, something we are going to encounter with greater frequency. 

And I think even in your testimony this morning you referenced 

the combination of, say, alcohol with another substance. And in fact 

we had just such an incident occurred in a district that I represent 

a couple of years ago. A young man who was crossing, probably 

outside of the crosswalk, a fairly busy street, and, yes, it was after 

dark, was struck by an individual, a young man driving a Jeep. 

And the man in the crosswalk died. And the young man who was 

driving the Jeep, I think had a 0.04 percent alcohol and a positive 

test, qualitative test for marijuana. 

No charges were brought. So his mother comes to see me and 

says, ‘‘What in the world is going on here?’’ You thought that she 

had a vendetta against the young man driving the Jeep, but she 

has lost a son. It does seem like there possibly was some component of impairment of the person who was operating the vehicle 

and where is the protection for her son in that exchange? 

So I would just be interested in some of the things that you are 

thinking about and doing. Even if it is education for our local district attorneys, that be mindful of the fact that, yes, they are under 

the legal limit for alcohol, but a positive test for marijuana may be 

difficult to associate a temporal relationship. But on the other 

hand, it may have a bearing, and this may be a case that needs 

to go to the grand jury and not simply dismissed as an unfortunate 

accident. 

So let me hear your thoughts on that. 

Ms. KING. Thank you very much, Congressman Burgess. I look 

forward to continuing to work with you on this. 

Although I have only been at NHTSA it is now 20 1⁄2 weeks, I believe today is my 20 1⁄2-week anniversary, already in my time at 

NHTSA I have spent two visits to the State of California in the fall 

where they have been educating me about the work that is being 

46 

done in the laboratories, in the DUI courts. I have met with prosecutors who are finding ways to prosecute despite the difficulty in 

actually having good, robust laboratory results that are temporally 

appropriate for determining impairment in a prosecution. 

What I have found is, yes, we have a ways to go, but, yes, we 

have some best practices to share. What I have found at NHTSA 

is that we have pockets of activity in different places. In the County of Orange in California, again, Congresswoman Walters’ district 

has a great deal of learnings for us, but other areas as well where 

we can both leverage the best practices. But there are still gaps. 

None of us, no one alone is going to solve the problem, and none 

of us alone have the answers. My role at NHTSA, I am not a physician and I certainly have not had a history of working only on this 

issue, but at NHTSA our concern for safe driving gives us the opportunity to convene and to bring together the dialogue and to foster a community that can leverage our strength together. 

I want to make sure that the best practices are identified so that 

we can all start using them to save lives today, and that we set 

a strong vision for where we need to be as a country, identifying 

the gaps and identifying where we are on progress toward those 

gaps so we can close them. 

It is unacceptable that we would see people, understanding with 

our Nation’s history that impairment kills, it is unacceptable that 

we would allow continued impairment from illicit drugs to injure 

families on our roadways. 

It is heartbreaking. You described a story. We all feel the pain 

of needless loss at every life, in particular around needless impaired driving. 

Mr. BURGESS. So there was a young man who came to see me 

whose parents were lost in an automobile accident where the driver 

of the truck that hit them was impaired, and even admitted the impairment. His frustration was, even though this individual went to 

jail, it was for a 3-month time for driving with a suspended license. 

The impairment did not even enter into the prosecution. And that 

is a thing I think we have to address. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Ms. King, for being here today. 

And I appreciate NHTSA’s recent announcement to launch its 

drugged-driving initiative. Law enforcement, we know, must have 

the tools it needs to determine impaired driving, particularly drug 

impairment. 

Last Congress we passed the FAST Act, which included language 

I championed that required NHTSA to study marijuana-impaired 

driving and how it affects individuals behind the wheel. Additionally, that study asked NHTSA to work on a roadside test for impairment, including a device capable of measuring marijuana levels. My colleagues have also raised this issue. 

But I would like to get some more of your thoughts beyond addressing the legal limits of the challenges we face in addressing 

47 

drug impairment on our roadways and what steps that Congress 

can take to start addressing this issue. 

Ms. KING. First of all, Congresswoman, may I thank you for your 

support of the marijuana report to Congress that was submitted 

last year. That report was in fact one of the pieces that educated 

me and caused me, as I stepped into my role at NHTSA, to take 

on the drug-impaired driving initiative. 

So thank you very much for your leadership on this issue that 

is of such critical importance at the Federal, state, and local levels. 

I do not at this point have a recommendation for congressional 

action because there is what is known and what is not known. I 

don’t feel as though there has been a comprehensive assessment of 

the gaps across all drug-impaired driving. 

We have, as a Nation, spoken about marijuana-impaired driving, 

THC products. We have spoken about opioid-impaired driving. But 

in fact the laboratories, and I will cite the crime lab of Orange 

County in your own community, they are testing now for 46 different substances, I believe. 

And what I hear from the toxicologists in your community is that 

not only is it a challenge that people may have several substances 

on board at the same time, or that they may be masking with alcohol, but in fact that the specific chemical substances change. If it 

is a synthetic substance, the formula changes, and that means that 

the chemical test the toxicologist must apply, that will change, too. 

So forgive me for getting in the weeds a little bit too much there. 

But thanks to the work that you encouraged that was submitted 

last year, and thanks to the very skills and the patience of those 

who have been educating me where the rubber hits the road, where 

the risks are in the field, I have taken on that commitment to figure out what are those gaps, in partnership with the stakeholders, 

state, and local governments. What do we know? What do we not 

know? 

And then, from there, set a vision for a course for the future, 

which I think it would be appropriate for us at that time to get 

back to you with what we think the gaps are and where working 

with Congress is absolutely a critical piece. 

If I might add, public awareness is already identified as a gap. 

People know that they should not drive with alcohol impairment, 

but in speaking with the local law enforcement officials, it sounds 

as though our communities may not be as aware that it is not OK 

to drive buzzed. We have at NHTSA public awareness campaigns 

through our partnerships with states. We are trying to raise awareness, but simply helping people understand that driving impaired 

with drugs can kill. That is an immediate gap that we know that 

we can address today. I would seek your support and partnership 

on that. It is important we educate the public to drive safely when 

they are ready to drive and not when they are impaired. 

Mrs. WALTERS. I think that is a really good point because, for so 

many years, it was all about drunk driving. And now we have entered sort of a new phase, if you will, on this whole marijuana 

issue that we have to reeducate our people in this country to make 

sure that they understand. That is a really good point. 

I also introduced H.R. 3405, which was included in the SELF 

DRIVE Act, that expands the FAST Act testing exemption to new 

48 

entrants developing safe-driving technology. Can you please speak 

to how important it is to maintain a level playing field for any type 

of company that wishes to test this technology? 

Ms. KING. And thank you very much for that provision. We think 

it is very important that the emerging technologies be developed by 

people who are able to do it best. We think in this time of very revolutionary changes in automotive safety technology that there may 

be ideas coming from the traditional auto manufacturers, but there 

also may be ideas coming from academia or other organizations as 

well. So we think it is very important that we have an environment 

that welcomes safety driving technologies from wherever it comes, 

as we go through this journey of seeing safe deployments and testing on our roadways. 

Mrs. WALTERS. One last question. In your testimony, you state 

we are currently undergoing transportation transformation. And if 

we delay action on these changes, such as self-driving vehicles, do 

you believe investment and innovation will be moved abroad? 

Ms. KING. As an economist, I am formally trained as an economist, and I believe that the investment will generally go where the 

return is, and so I would like to see that the investment in these 

potentially life-changing technologies remain here in the United 

States, that we maintain a leadership role in automotive technology. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The rest of the gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. King, I introduced H.R. 3411, legislation that was eventually 

rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act which brings together stakeholders to make recommendations on cybersecurity for testing and 

deployment of self-driving vehicles. Can you share with me your 

observations on the importance of cybersecurity concerns and the 

role that NHTSA will be playing? 

Ms. KING. I will be very happy to. Thank you for the question. 

Cybersecurity is clearly very important to us as we have become 

an increasingly digital world, and automotive technology is a part 

of that. One of the roles that NHTSA is playing is in encouraging 

the conversation through the Auto ISAC, the Information Sharing 

and Analysis Center, which is a collaborative group of auto manufacturers and cybersecurity experts and also suppliers into that industry developing best practices for sharing information. We did 

issue a guidance in 2016 which we are very proud of. We have also 

asked that manufacturers disclose in their voluntary safety self-assessments how they consider cybersecurity. 

I would add a key component of this in my own personal message 

on cybersecurity is that cybersecurity is not the domain of highly 

technical experts alone, but in fact cybersecurity is a concern to all 

of us. We see from our experience, whether it be on our home computers or on our phones, that there may be vulnerabilities that are 

driven by users. And so part of the cybersecurity journey will be 

to educate all of us to be thoughtful about how we use our devices 

or our cars and make sure that we all are sensitive and partners 

in the cybersecurity journey. 

49 

NHTSA is very excited about the Auto ISAC in particular and 

looks forward to having more to share out of that effort. 

Mr. COSTELLO. What is your expectation on deliverables? 

Ms. KING. On deliverables? We do have a guidance that was 

issued in 2016, and we are now expecting to see more voluntary 

safety self-assessments from manufacturers which will describe 

how they address cybersecurity. What we see during this time of 

rapid technology change is that the deliverables evolve depending 

on the need and out of the dialogue. So I expect to see more work 

out of the Auto ISAC. I expect to see manufacturers not only 

issuing their voluntarily self-assessments but perhaps updating 

them to reflect what they learned as the technology evolves and as 

they learn from one another. And then NHTSA of course will stand 

ready to continue to add or shape the conversation and to continue 

to drive the importance of this issue going forward. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Now that is separate and apart from the new 

safety data initiative that will integrate data on highway design 

data with known crashes so that DOT will be able to analyze and 

estimate crash risk. Is that correct? That is a separate initiative? 

Ms. KING. That is right. We have two initiatives actually at the 

Department, one of them the safety data pilot programs and one 

of them specifically with respect to the automated driving systems. 

The automated driving systems data pilot programs or pilot dialogue as well. Both of them are intended to help us modernize the 

way we think about the use of data. With automated drive systems, 

we are thinking about data-driven safety. We think about our role 

at NHTSA as a facilitator. We think about, where can we start 

small and then scale up in order to coordinate the use of data, reduce costs, and improve the effectiveness of data for managing 

safety risks? The pilot programs are an effort to understand whether the rich sources of data that are not talking together today can 

be better leveraged to forecast risks on our highways so that we 

can operate more safely. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How do you view V-2-V technology maturing? 

And at what point in time do you think that we will see either 

more guidance from NHTSA or sort of whole scale buy-in from the 

automotive industry? Much is there, I think, but there is a little 

bit of—I don’t way to say tension, but could you just share your observations on what you see moving forward there? 

Ms. KING. It is a very interesting time. We all recognize the 

value of the safety benefits that can come from V-2-V technology. 

I don’t know whether tension is the wrong word in that we see that 

technologies emerging and hopefully learning from one another. 

The critical thing here is to make sure that, as we progress, given 

the importance of the safety technologies to our roadways and to 

our drivers and consumers, that the technologies evolve in a way 

that provides the benefit that we all hope for. At the Department 

of Transportation, we like to avoid picking winners and losers. 

Right now, there is a vigorous discussion among I will say the more 

technical people and the suppliers and manufacturers around I will 

say two key technologies in particular. I encourage that discussion, 

even if it does bring tension, because we need to get the answer 

right for the Nation. 

50 

Mr. COSTELLO. Sure. Before I yield back, I would agree, I am not 

sure tension was the right word. I think obviously there is a little 

bit of uncertainty, and that may owe itself to the fact that the technologies are still evolving, and we don’t want to cement things too 

early. So I think that I appreciate you for coming up with a better 

word than the word that I used in the premise of my question. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, seeing that there are no other members asking 

questions today, Ms. King, we really appreciate your testimony 

today. And you kind of walked around the entire spectrum of what 

we are looking at. A lot of issues that the members had today were 

about safety, cybersecurity, issues with THC. When I was in the 

Ohio legislature for 11 years and chairing the judiciary and the 

criminal committees there, these were issues that we dealt with, 

especially talking you go about THC, and the question was, when 

you are looking at drugged driving and not drunk driving, but also 

when you are talking about what we were looking at today the 

with DUID and also about masking. And so there are a lot of 

things going on out there. I know, in Ohio, on some of our roads, 

we have got signs up to report to the highway patrol about drugged 

driving right now. So there are a lot of things out there. And we 

appreciate your testimony today, but we expect that from someone 

who is a former E&C’er. So we appreciate your being with us 

today. 

I have a letter, a document that has been submitted for the 

record by unanimous consent, a letter from the Center for Auto 

Safety. If there is no objection, the letter is accepted without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. LATTA. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. I ask witnesses to submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of questions. 

And, without objection, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

51 


30061.005

The Center for 

""c•~~~!~~~~~~~y www.autosafety.org 

February 14,2018 

Chairman Robert Latta 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Dear Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky: 

The Center for Auto Safety ("the Center") submits the following letter in connection with 

today's hearing where the Subcommittee is engaging in its vital oversight role over the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Center, founded in 

1970, is an independent, non-profit consumer advocacy organization dedicated to 

improving vehicle safety, quality, and fuel economy not only for our members, but all 

drivers, passengers, and pedestrians across the county. We appreciate the Subcommittee 

conducting this hearing and stand ready to assist in any way we can to improve the 

effectiveness of the agency that 330 million Americans depend on for the safety and 

quality of the vehicles on our roads. 

On behalf of our members nationwide, the Center calls upon Congress, to both authorize 

and appropriate budgetary levels commensurate with the scope of the task which presents 

itself for NHTSA at a moment unlike any other in the history of the automobile. 

As you know, in FY 2018, despite pledges to make a safety a priority, the budget request 

submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT) would slash NHTSA's 

funding by almost 25% from its FY 2017 request. 1 This dramatic cut comes at a time 

when there are more than 37,000 traffic deaths and over 2 million serious injuries caused 

by traffic incidents annually. Sadly, 2016 saw 5.6% more traffic deaths than the year 

before. We need a more effective and empowered NHTSA, not a weakened agency. 

Congress, from time to time, has chosen to enact a higher level of funding to a safety 

agency than the level requested by the Executive branch. Once again, on behalf of all 

Americans impacted by vehicle safety, we call upon you to take a similar path for FY 

2018 and beyond. 

1 The recently released FY 2019 budget request by DOT slashes funding by an additional 19 percent. 
52 


30061.006

Center for Auto Safety letter to Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky 

Enforcing the Law 

NHTSA's mission, which is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting 

from motor vehicle crashes, provides a jurisdiction covering all passenger motor vehicles 

in the United States. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work for NHTSA to do. In addition to 

the rising number of deaths caused by traffic crashes every year, recalls as a result of 

defective vehicles are on the rise as well. In 2016, there were over 53 million vehicles 

recalled, which was the third year in a row with recalls exceeding 50 million. These 

numbers include, but are not limited to, the 37 million vehicles and counting, under recall 

because the defective Takata airbag inflators. In other words, even without Takata, there 

are tens of millions of defects resulting in recalls across all auto manufacturers. 

Yet, despite these record setting recall figures, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation 

(ODI), the unit directly responsible for conducting defect investigations and overseeing 

recalls remains chronically underfunded and understaffed. In FY 2015, NHTSA's total 

budget was $830 million with 612 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. Vehicle Safety's 

share of this total was $130 million and 341 FTEs, of which $9.7 million and 54 FTEs 

was for ODI. Incredibly, despite the record number of recalls and the increase in motor 

vehicle deaths, injuries, and societal costs since 2015, in its proposed FY 2018 budget, 

NHTSA has reduced its request for ODI funding down to $9.11 million. American 

drivers deserve more cops on the safety enforcement beat. 

Self-Driving Cars 

When it comes to self-driving cars, it is essential NHTSA plays an integral role in 

ensuring the safe operation of these robot-vehicles. Research has always been a key 

function of the agency and must continue to be a priority as the cars of the future are 

being conceived, tested on the open road, and eventually deployed in our neighborhoods. 

Yet, when examining the FY 2018 budget, "Vehicle Safety Research and Analysis 

activities" which are designed to "enhance the safety and security of automotive 

electronic control systems while supporting the safe adoption of vehicle automation 

technologies,"2 one finds a request reduced by over $1.3 million, down to $33,121,600. 

At a time when this Congress is considering new legislation to speed the pace of the 

development of self-driving vehicles and when private industry is spending tens of 

billions of dollars in this space -the federal government must be able to, at the very least, 

maintain its current funding to provide the necessary oversight of this potentially society 

changing technology. A reduction in research funding works in opposition of this goal. 

Writing Rules of the Road 

NHTSA's Safety Standards Support program is responsible for promulgating the rules 

that Congress directs be written. An even playing field that provides guidance for all 

players in the auto manufacturing space is necessary for safety and a well-operating 

2 NHTSA Budget Estimates FY 2018, p. 64, available at: 

https:Uwww.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/fy2018 nhtsa d·OS162017-final.pdf 

February 14,2018 Page 2 of 4 
53 


30061.007

Center for Auto Safety letter to Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky 

marketplace. Yet, as technology advances, the job of writing the relevant rules becomes 

even harder. As NHTSA's budget says: 

Motor vehicle technology is becoming increasingly complex and more knowledge 

and expertise are needed to inform policy decisions. As the ability of motor 

vehicles to sense and respond to the driving environment increases, there is a 

greater need to modernize standards that keep pace with technology. As the 

technology becomes more complex, the rulemaking activities must be more 

sophisticated and informed in order to support this technology. 3 

Nonetheless, for FY 2018, NHTSA has requested a reduction in funding for this complex 

function, going down from an already small $2.095 million to $2.04 million. This move 

will only undercut the timeliness ofrulemakings and harm consumer safety. 

Comparison 

While no two agencies are identical in size or mission, it is worth noting how 

underfunded NHTSA is in comparison to one of its fellow safety agencies at DOT. Great 

success has been found at the FAA, as some reports note that 2017 may have been safest 

year to ever fly. 4 Decades of hard work in the public and private sector, technological 

advances, a successful regulatory framework, and adequate funding all working in 

concert delivered these results. Perhaps accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) budget request for FY 2018 is $16.2 billion. We would note this is a figure that is 

more than 16 times NHTSA' s request of $899 million despite there being approximately 

37,000 more deaths in motor vehicle traffic crashes than in commercial plane crashes on 

an annual basis. All safety is a critical government function, be it in the air or on the 

ground. Still, it is difficult for the vital work that needs to be done by NHTSA to take off 

when it is being held without clearance to taxi down the runway. 

Conclusion 

More funding alone will not make any safety agency function perfectly. The ability for 

NHTSA to realize its full potential to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the 

economic burdens we all face due to crashes on our nation's roads lies with its leadership, 

its dedicated career staff, and the multitude of stakeholders with which it works on a daily 

basis. However, the agency tasked with overseeing so much of our nation's traffic safety 

cannot reach this potential with one arm tied behind its back. Underfunding this critical 

agency is counterproductive to the safety goals I am sure we all share. 

On behalf of the Center for Auto Safety and our members, thank you for your attention to 

this important matter. 

3 NHTSA Budget Estimates FY 2018, p. 32, available at: 

https:l/www.nhtsa.gov{sites{nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/fy2018·nhtsa cj-05162017-fmal.pdf 4 Dave Shepardson, 2017 safest year on record for commercial passenger air travel: groups, Reuters, 

January 1, 2018, available at: https:Uwww.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-safetv/2017-safest-year-onrecord-for-commercial-passenger-air-travel-groups-idUSKBN1EQ17L 

February 14,2018 Page 3 of 4 
54 


30061.008

Center for Auto Safety letter to Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky 

Sincerely, 

Jason Levine 

Executive Director 

cc: Honorable Greg Walden 

Honorable Frank Pallone 

Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart 

Honorable David Price 

Deputy Administrator Heidi King 

February 14,2018 Page 4 of 4 
55 


30061.009

GREG WALDEN. OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

QJ::ongrt%% of tbt Wnittb .i>tatt% 

J!,lou£1e of ~epre!ltntati\lt£1 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 (202)225-2927 

(202)225-3641 

Aprill2,2018 

Ms. Heidi King 

Deputy Administrator 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. King: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

on, Wednesday, February 14,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration.!! 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains open 

for ten business days to penni! Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are attached. 

The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the Member whose 

question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in bold, and (3) your 

answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions by the close of 

business on Thursday, April 26, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2l25 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and 

e-mailed in Word format to ali.fulling@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

1fZ Robert E. Latta------' 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce 

and Consumer Protection 

cc: Jan Schakowsky, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Attachment 
56 


30061.010

Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Robert E. Latta 

1. Can you please give us a brief update on the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)? We 

know NHTSA asserts the program has influenced manufacturers to build vehicles that 

consistently achieve high ratings. 

RESPONSE: Because of the recent increase in the rate of automotive technological 

change, NI ITSA is evaluating how to maintain a program that informs consumers and 

encourages manufacturers to continue to prioritize safety innovations. In 2015, NHTSA 

announced plans to significantly upgrade NCAP. NHTSA reviewed public comments on 

its 2015 plans and is working with the Administration on next steps. 

a. What are the forthcoming actions on NCAP? Is there a time line for enhancing NCAP 

and including autonomous vehicles? 

RESPONSE: In 2018. NHTSA plans to engage stakeholders on its next actions for 

NCAP- the public comments received in response to the 2015 notice demonstrated the 

need for a dialogue regarding the types of information that would be most helpful to 

consumers and the types of tests and rating systems would be best suited to achieve 

program goals. NHTSA plans to give consideration to advanced driver assistance 

systems that have the potential to further automotive safety. 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger 

1. I appreciate you addressing my question regarding my recalled parts provisions in the 

FAST Act, however your response at the hearing (as well as the subsequent written 

explanation your staff sent to my staff) regarding the status of my provision actually 

seems to address a different provision regarding batch look up ofVINs. That provision 

did, indeed, require a study. To clarify, the batch provision that you reference is Section 

24103. But that is not the Kinzinger provision that I am inquiring about which is Section 

24116. 

Section 24116 requires automakers to provide recalled parts data and does not expressly 

mention batch data. Section 24116 reads as follows: 

SEC. 24116. INFORMATION REGARDING COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN 

RECALL. Section 30119 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

"(g) INFORMATION REGARDING COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN 

RECALL-A manufacturer that is required to furnish a report under section 

573.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) for a 

defect or noncompliance in a motor vehicle or in an item of original or 

replacement equipment shall, if such defect or noncompliance involves a specific 
57 


30061.011

2 

component or components, include in such report, with respect to such component 

or components, the following information: 

"(I) The name of the component or components. 

"(2) A description of the component or components. 

"(3) The part number of the component or components, if any." 

For NHTSA to adequately address my provision from the FAST Act, it is my belief that 

it can only be accomplished through comprehensive access to both original equipment 

part numbers of recalled parts tied to specific YINs and other OE parts identification 

information. It is important that automotive manufacturers and professional automotive 

recyclers come together to enhance overall motor vehicle safety, help improve recall 

remedy rates, and effectively address the federal recall remedy requirements for used 

equipment enacted 15 years ago in the TREAD Act. 

a. Will you commit to having NHTSA host a high-level Recall Safety Summit of 

stakeholders to more effectively address this outstanding safety issue that has not 

been addressed in the past 26 months since its passage? 

b. Please provide any other updates regarding Section 24116, which is critically 

needed for the efficient identification of safety recalled parts in the automotive 

supply chain, especially by automotive recyclers. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA agrees that information on component parts can be critical for the 

efficient identification of safety recalled parts. 

Manufacturers have been required to provide this information since section 24116 came 

into effect. In other words, manufacturers are required to provide component name, 

description, and part number information in the Part 573 recall reports they file with 

NHTSA. That requirement became effective with the FAST Act. In early 2017, NHTSA 

provided guidance to manufacturers on how to submit this information on Part 573 recall 

reports. As a result, manufacturers are not only aware of the requirement, they also know 

how NIITSA expects this information to be shared. 

Thank you for your suggestion for NHTSA to host another Recall Safety Summit. This 

suggestion is under serious consideration. In the meanwhile, NHTSA has continued to 

engage with stakeholders on how to address this recall safety more effectively. 

For example, NHTSA staff has met with members of the professional automotive 

recycler industry to understand what challenges the industry faces in removing recalled 

parts from circulation. NHTSA has discovered that the professional automotive recycler 

industry has challenges identifying recalled parts because of the sheer volume of its 

inventory. Upon further discussions, NHTSA and the automotive recycler industry agree 

that using a bulk YIN look up tool would allow the professional automotive recycler 

industry to trace a recalled part to a specific YIN more efficiently. 
58 


30061.012

3 

On March 23, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global 

Automakers, and Carfax announced the launch of a new tool that would allow recyclers, 

as well as other commercial and governmental entities to conduct bulks searches for open 

recalls free of charge. The search tool is available at www.freeautorecallsearch.org. 

NHTSA will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure the effectiveness of recalls. 

2. In November of last year, the GAO released a report titled: "Automated Vehicles: 

Comprehensive Plan Could Help DOT Address Challenges." The report indicated that 

"DOT recently formed a group to lead policy development in the future, but has not 

announced a detailed timeline or scope of work. Without a comprehensive plan, it is 

unclear whether DOT's efforts are adequately tackling AV challenges." The report also 

indicated that "states are ... responsible for registering vehicles, licensing drivers, 

educating drivers, and regulating auto insurance." My home state of Illinois is home to 

numerous large, medium, and small auto insurance firms. The SELF DRIVE Act 

recognizes the long standing regulation of auto insurance at the state level. 

a. Please explain, in as much detail as possible, NHTSA and DOT's outreach 

(referenced above) to the automobile insurance market participants, state insurance 

commissioners, state legislators, and consumer groups. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is committed to frequent and transparent outreach to 

stakeholders, including insurance market participants, state representatives and 

consumer groups. 

To that end, the Office of the Secretary, NI-ITSA, and other DOT modes have 

convened multiple public meetings, workshops, listening sessions, and webinars over 

the past six months. These events include a wide spectrum of interest and topics and 

have been attended by representatives from the insurance and liability sector. 

Information and summaries regarding these meetings can be found at 

www.transportation.gov/A V. 

b. Has a time line, scope of work, or comprehensive plan been established, to date? 

RESPONSE: DOT is working aggressively to develop a plan that responds to the 

GAO recommendation, as outlined in the Joint Explanatory Statement to the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act. The plan will include goals, priorities, steps to 

achieve results, milestones, and performance measures to track progress. 

3. The November GAO report mentioned in Question 2 also raised questions about data 

privacy, ownership of data, and access to the data from A V s. The report indicated that 

"DOT officials indicated that they expect existing data privacy policies and disclosure 

agreements to apply to AVs." It is likely too early to determine what the insurance and 

liability landscape will be as AVs proliferate. NHTSA may have an opportunity to play 

an important role in convening interested parties-be they state insurance commissioners, 
59 


30061.013

auto insurance companies, the OEMs, or others-to facilitate dialogue about the flow of 

A V data in the future while simultaneously recognizing and respecting the role of states 

in regulating auto insurance. 

a. Do you agree with this assessment? 

b. Do you see NHTSA playing a role in the realm of data flows? If so, please 

describe your vision. 

4 

RESPONSE: NHTSA believes that data privacy, ownership of data, and access to data 

from Automated Driving Systems are important topics. NHTSA will have a primary role 

as it relates to data associated with vehicle safety, such as data required for crash 

reconstruction. NHTSA is already working with SAE International to develop the 

parameters for data that may be necessary to reconstruct a crash involving a vehicle 

equipped with an Automated Driving System. 

NHTSA takes consumer privacy seriously and will diligently assess the privacy impacts 

on individuals of any safety regulations or guidance it issues, including those related to 

Automated Driving Systems. NHTSA also will continue to work collaboratively with the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and rely on its expertise and jurisdiction to address 

vehicle data and other consumer privacy issues outside ofNHTSA's vehicle safety 

authority. 

The Honorable David McKinley 

1. According to NHTSA data, we have recently experienced one of the largest percentage 

increases in vehicle fatalities in nearly 50 years. It is critical that NHTSA continues to 

update its crash countermeasures to protect consumers and reverse this trend. Can you 

provide me with the latest information on NHTSA's efforts to update its crash 

countermeasures and how the agency is taking into account new innovations, such as 

lightweight materials that did not exist when NHTSA's current countermeasures were 

created, to improve structural safety guidelines? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA shares your concern about the increase in crash fatalities and that 

is why we are investing in innovative strategies to improve both the safety of vehicles 

and the behavior of drivers and other road users. 

To make vehicles safer, the agency is studying new materials used in vehicle structures 

and evaluating how lightweight materials can reduce weight and improve fuel economy 

without reducing safety. For example, NHTSA recently completed a study on the 

application of thermoplastic carbon fiber materials to optimize weight and safety for sideimpact crashes. NHTSA is also developing a new generation of crash test dummies for 

front- and side-impact crash tests that will allow better predictions of injury risk across a 

wider range of body regions and injury types. The agency is developing a new crash test 

to evaluate air bag and seat belt performance in offset frontal crashes and refining 
60 


30061.014

5 

computer simulation models so new vehicle designs can improve safety for a wider range 

of human body types, including obese and elderly occupants. New approaches are also 

being used to evaluate rollover safety, the safety of rear seat occupants, seat belt 

requirements, occupant safety in low-speed crashes, and child seat performance. 

To make further progress in safe behaviors, NHTSA is responding to emerging problems 

with new program initiatives. Agency data shows that drug-impaired driving is 

increasing and in March 2018 the agency convened a Call to Action meeting to hear from 

stakeholders, identify priorities and launch a coordinated national effort to understand 

and control the problem. Experts at the event identified several key areas for focus, 

including improvements to criminal justice systems, data collection and toxicology 

practices. 

State and local traffic safety programs arc often the source of innovative behavior change 

strategies. A series of regional listening sessions will be conducted this year to gather 

further information on strategies to control drug-impaired driving. NHTSA and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are also supporting a series of Safe System 

Innovation Grants through the Road to Zero Coalition to encourage new approaches that 

combine roadway, vehicle and behavior-based methods to improve traffic safety. The 

National Safety Council, with the support ofNHTSA and FHWA, administers these 

grants seven grants awarded in 2017 and eleven in 2018, for a total of$2.5 million. 

NHTSA, FHW A and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

collaborate in supporting the Road to Zero Coalition which now includes more than 700 

organizations. 

The Honorable Larry Bucshon 

I. Ms. King, NHTSA has indicated it will propose CAFE regulations for 2022-2025 model 

years by the end of March or early April. EPA has not indicated a time line for their 

Revised Final Determination or any subsequent proposed rulemaking. How is NHTSA 

coordinating with EPA to ensure a coordinated approach and schedule that results in an 

efficient regulatory framework? 

RESPONSE: We are working closely with our counterparts at EPA to develop 

coordinated proposals for issuance as soon as possible. 

2. As you know, glider kits are brand new commercial trucks absent the engine, 

transmission, and rear axles. Glider kits originated as a means to replace a badly damaged 

truck chassis and cab, while reusing the damaged truck's powertrain. Now a new industry 

has been birthed, where manufacturers are installing older remanufactured engines into 

these glider kits in growing numbers, producing new glider vehicles which have avoided 

EPA and NHTSA emission and safety regulations. Glider vehicle manufacturers are 

clearly manufacturers of new motor vehicles according to NHTSA regulation §571.7(e). 

Are these manufacturers meeting basic legal requirements to register with NHTSA as 

manufacturers, to define YIN configurations, and to file safety defect reports? What is 
61 


30061.015

NHTSA doing to ensure that glider manufacturers are complying with all existing heavy 

duty Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and to take enforcement actions where 

appropriate? 

6 

RESPONSE: We understand the concerns about the status of these remanufactured 

vehicles. The question of whether a vehicle built from a glider kit is a new vehicle 

produced by a "manufacturer" under our statute or a used vehicle that has simply been 

rebuilt is very fact dependent. Under 49 CFR § 571.7(e), certain vehicles built with a 

combination of new and used components are not considered to be new vehicles whose 

rebuilders must design to comply with the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act of 1966. This "glider" exception applies when a new cab or body is put on a 

truck when the engine, transmission, and axles are not new and at least two of those 

components are from the same vehicle. When a glider is built with engines, 

transmissions, and axles obtained from disparate sources and no two of the three are from 

the same vehicle, the vehicle is not a "glider," but is a newly manufactured vehicle and 

thus must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

3. Ms. King, I introduced HR 3421, which was eventually rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act 

that directs the Secretary to establish a publicly available and searchable electronic 

database for motor vehicles that have been granted an exemption. The goal of this bill is 

to increase transparency between the federal government and the public. How important 

is communication between NHTSA, the States and the public at large? 

RESPONSE: Communication and transparency with the public and States are important 

to NHTSA and DOT. In 2018, NHTSA plans to propose changes to update the 

administrative procedures for exemption petitions, including efforts to increase 

processing efficiencies and public access to documents, data and information. 

4. Ms. King, in your testimony you mention that NHTSA is adapting your mission given the 

rapid pace of change in the current transportation landscape. Can you please talk about 

what NHTSA is doing to adapt and how NHTSA is leveraging new technology to 

improve safety? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is adapting its processes to be more responsive as well as pursuing 

research and regulatory initiatives that are technology neutral and modernize our 

regulations to remove unintended barriers to new safety technologies. 

For example, in January of this year, NHTSA published a notice seeking comments 

to identify any regulatory barriers in the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) to the testing, compliance certification and compliance verification of motor 

vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) and certain unconventional interior 

designs. These comments will aid the Agency in setting research priorities as well as 

inform its subsequent actions to lay a path for innovative vehicle designs and 

technologies that feature ADSs, particularly those systems that promise to enhance 

safety. 
62 


30061.016

7 

In addition, given the rapid pace of technology and the potential impact that Automated 

Driving Systems could have to improve safety dramatically on our roadways, NHTSA is 

also working with industry to ensure safety is a priority. To support the safe testing and 

deployment of these systems, Secretary Chao issued "A Vision for Safety 2.0," a flexible 

framework that is adaptable as the technology continues to evolve. 

Another area in which NHTSA is adapting to the rapid pace of change is with respect to 

driver behaviors. Evidence is growing that drug-impaired driving is on the rise in many 

regions of the U.S. and to address the risks on our roadways NHTSA has launched an 

Initiative to combat drug-impaired driving as well as alcohol-impaired driving. NHTSA 

supports research in the identification of impairment, as well as counter-measures and 

tools such as Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety ("DADSS") and oral-fluid 

testing for THC. 

5. Ms. King, who is NHTSA partnering with on its newly announced Drugged-Driving 

Initiative and how can we on this committee support the work you're doing at NHTSA on 

this very important issue? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is partnering with a wide range of stakeholders on the new DrugImpaired Driving Initiative, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 

other Federal agencies, as well as State and local governments, law enforcement 

organizations, health and medical practitioners, prosecutors, toxicology professionals, 

advocacy organizations, and others who can help prevent drug-impaired driving. 

NHTSA will convene a stakeholder group on June 15 to coordinate national efforts, 

followed by a series of regional meetings to gather information on State and local needs 

and innovative program approaches. NHTSA also plans to convene two expert groups 

this summer to develop guidance for strengthening State criminal justice systems and 

toxicology practices. The agency will also develop a National advertising campaign for 

release by the end of calendar year 2018 to educate motorists about the dangers of drugimpaired driving. 

The additional $5 million provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2018 will help NHTSA further its work to address impaired driving. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and its members to address these 

emerging risks on our roadways. In the ncar term, we appreciate your support to help 

raise awareness that drug-impaired driving is dangerous. 

The Honorable Jan Schakowsky 

1. NHTSA's public planning for self-driving cars has been focused on "eliminating 

unnecessary regulatory barriers." But self-driving cars usc many new technologies, such 

as a variety of sensors. Those sensors may require new safety standards. What specific 
63 


30061.017

new motor vehicle safety standards are needed to address new technologies? When will 

NHTSA initiate rulemaking proceedings for those safety standards? 

8 

RESPONSE: We share your view that the safety of vehicle components is critically 

important in vehicle safety. NHTSA is in the process of exploring these issues related to 

technologies that are not yet deployed or are still developing. The National Highway 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not allow NHTSA to set new safety standards 

in the absence of objective information as to whether potential standards are reasonable, 

practicable, and appropriate. 49 U .S.C. 30 Ill. Further research is needed before we can 

consider whether or how new standards may be appropriate. However, manufactures are 

still required to design motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment free of unreasonable 

safety risk and NHTSA maintains its existing enforcement authority. 

Last September, Secretary Chao released A Vision for Safety 2.0, our new voluntary 

guidance to support and encourage the growth of automated vehicles. A Vision for 

Safety paves the way for the safe testing and deployment of Automated Driving Systems 

by providing voluntary guidance that encourages best practices and prioritizes safety. 

2. At the hearing, you stated that the President's Budget reflects the resources you believe 

NHTSA needs. How are you planning to reorganize or redistribute staff and resources to 

address the changing needs of the agency? How will you ensure that staff have the skills 

and knowledge needed to address new technologies, including automated technologies? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA's number one priority is safety, and every action the agency takes 

is in support of its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic costs 

due to crashes. The fiscal year (FY) 2019 President's Budget request does not propose a 

reorganization or broad redistribution of staff responsibilities to meet the evolving 

highway safety challenges facing the agency and the American driving public. Rather, it 

lays the groundwork for NHTSA to respond effectively to the changing technological 

environment and address new safety challenges proactively. To this end, the FY 2019 

request includes funding to support research into complex safety-critical electronic 

control systems; vehicle cybersecurity; and new and emerging technologies that can help 

drivers avoid crashes, including a targeted $10 million investment to support the safe 

development and deployment of Automated Driving Systems. NHTSA recognizes that 

the rapid pace of technological change may require the agency to adapt, and to that end, 

we will be looking at existing vacancies and reprioritizing hiring decisions to onboard 

employees with the appropriate expertise to ensure NHTSA 's long term effectiveness. 

3. At the hearing, some of my colleagues and I asked you when some specific overdue 

rulemakings would be finalized. You were unable to provide specific dates at the 

hearing. And I have a few more overdue rulemakings to ask you about. While I agree 

that safety should not be rushed, some of these rules are years overdue. For each of the 

following rulemakings, please provide the specific date on which the rulemaking was 

initiated, the date on which the NPRM was issued, and when a final rule will be issued. If 

final rules have been issued on any of the below directed rulcmakings, please cite the 

publication of that rule in the Federal Register. 
64 


30061.018

RESPONSE: NHTSA appreciates the opportunity to follow-up on your questions 

regarding overdue rulemakings. Specifically, you asked NHTSA to explain why the 

agency missed the statutory deadlines for Congressional mandates and requested that 

NHTSA provide a status update and planned completion of the rulemaking. 

NHTSA continues to work on completing all the mandates, including the MAP-21 and 

FAST Act mandates you reference. The status of the rulemakings and our estimates for 

completing them are provided below. 

9 

a. Section 31501 of MAP-21 required a rule to better protect children in car seats in side 

impact crashes. This rule is already two years overdue. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated research in 2009 to develop a side impact test 

procedure for evaluating side impact protection of child restraint systems. An NPRM 

was issued by the agency on January 28,2014 towards fulfillment of the provision in 

Section 31501 ofMAP-21. NHTSA plans to publish the final rule in 2018. 

b. Section 31502 of MAP-21 required a rule improving child restraint anchorage 

systems by 2015. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2015, but there 

has been no further action. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in February 2012 to improve on the 

usability of child restraint anchorage systems. An NPRM was issued by the agency 

on January 23,2015 to address the provision in Section 31502 ofMAP-21 to improve 

the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems in all rear seating positions. The 

timing of a final rule is undetermined as the agency is currently evaluating comments 

to determine next steps. 

c. Section 31503 of MAP-21 required that NI ITSA initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 

require rear seat belt reminder systems. NI-ITSA has not taken any public action on 

that statutory mandate. 

RESPONSE: NI-ITSA initiated a rulemaking in June 2010 when it published a 

request for comments notice on rear seat belt reminder systems. The agency is 

currently drafting the NPRM to address the provision in Section 31503 ofMAP-21 

and estimates publication in 2018. The timing and content of a final rule will be 

determined following the public comment process of the NPRM. 

d. Section 24104 of the FAST Act required a rule that would ensure consumers are 

notified of recalls electronically in addition to by mail. The final rule was due in 

2016, but NHTSA has only issued an NPRM so far-also in 2016. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in October 2012 to address the 

provision in Section 24104 of the FAST Act to allow electronic notification methods 

for vehicle recalls. An ANPRM was issued by the agency on January 25, 2016, and 
65 


30061.019

10 

was followed with the publication of an NPRM on September I, 2016. The timing of 

a final rule is undetermined as the agency is currently evaluating comments to 

determine next steps. 

e. Section 24112 of the FAST Act required a rule regarding corporate responsibility for 

NHTSA reports. That rule was due by December 2016. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in December 2015 to address the 

provision in Section 24112 of the FAST Act for corporate responsibility of reporting 

to NHTSA. The agency is currently drafting the NPRM and estimates publication in 

2018. The timing and content of a final rule will be determined following the public 

comment process of the NPRM. 

f. Section 24115 of the FAST Act required a rule to ensure that tire pressure monitoring 

systems cannot be overridden, reset, or recalibrated in such a way that the system will 

no longer detect when the inflation pressure has fallen below a significantly 

underinflated level. NHTSA has yet to take any action on that requirement. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated research in February 2018 to address the provision in 

Section 24115 of the FAST Act to update the tire pressure monitoring system 

standards to (a) prohibit means to disconnect and (b) not prohibit either direct or 

indirect systems. The agency will begin the approved public collection of the 

research information and data in June 2018 and estimates a completed research report 

in 2019. The agency will finalize a rulemaking plan after the research is completed. 

g. Section 24322 of the FAST Act required a rule directing manufacturers to include 

stickers with crash avoidance information in their vehicles. That rule was due in 

2016. 

RESPONSE: Before NHTSA can initiate rulemaking to change the Monroney labels 

(vehicle window stickers), NHTSA sought public comment on what and which crash 

avoidance information would be appropriate for the New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) and to include on the Monroney labels. In 2015, NHTSA initiated activities 

to address the provision in Section 24322 of the FAST Act requiring the Agency to 

add crash avoidance information on the Monroney labels. NHTSA announced plans 

through a Federal Register Notice to update NCAP. One of the key components of 

that plan was the inclusion of crash avoidance technologies as part of the proposed 

ratings system for NCAP. The many public comments received in response to the 

2015 notice demonstrated a need for improved dialogue regarding the types of 

information that would be most helpful to consumers and the types of tests and 

ratings systems that would best suited to achieve program goals. In addition, in this 

era of unprecedented technological change in vehicle safety in recent years, NHTSA 

is evaluating how to maintain a program that not only provides meaningful 

information to consumers, but also encourages vehicle manufacturers to continually 

prioritize safety innovations. In 2018, NHTSA plans to engage stakeholders on its 

next actions for NCAP. NHTSA is considering how best to revise the Monroney 
66 


30061.020

11 

label to include information about those crash avoidance technologies that have the 

potential to reduce crashes and injuries, while also serving as the foundational 

technologies of automated vehicles. The timing and plans for a NPRM and final rule 

to add crash avoidance information on Monroney labels will be determined following 

the agency's public process for developing an update to NCAP. 

h. Section 24403 of the FAST Act required a rule directing manufacturers to retain 

vehicle safety records. That rule was due over a year ago. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in October 2016 to address the 

provision in Section 24403 ofthe FAST Act to amend the requirement for retention 

of manufacturing records from 5 years to not less than 10 years. The agency is 

currently drafting the NPRM and estimates publication in 2018. The timing and 

content of a final rule will be determined following the public comment process of the 

NPRM. 

i. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulcmaking for vehicle-to-vehicle 

communications in January of last year, with comments due in April of last year. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in July 2014 for vehicle-to-vehicle 

(V2V) communications, which uses on-board dedicated short-range radio 

communication devices to broadcast messages about a vehicle's speed, heading, 

brake status, and other information to other vehicles and receive the same 

information. An ANPRM was issued by the agency on August 20,2014, and was 

followed with the publication of an NPRM on January 12, 2017. The next action is 

undetermined as the agency is currently evaluating comments to determine next steps. 

j. Six years ago, Congress charged the National9-1-1 Office with issuing $1 15 million 

in grants to help deploy Next Generation 9-1-l. Unfortunately, the 9-1-1 Office has 

yet to even finalize its grant making rules. In addition to providing the rulemaking 

details, when can we expect that it will award the grants? 

RESPONSE: The 9-l-1 Office anticipates making grant awards before the end of 

calendar year 2018. These funds will assist States, Territories and Tribes in upgrading 

infrastructure, equipment and training for 911 call centers. 

While the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 authorized the new 

grants, the Act specified that funds must come from the Federal Communication 

Commission's Advanced Wireless Services (A WS-3) auction. These funds became 

available to NHTSA and the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration in September of2016, allowing the agencies to begin the statutorily 

required joint rulemaking. The agencies published the notice of proposed rulemaking 

on September 21, 2017 

(https:/ /www.fedcralrcgister.gov/documents/20 17/09/21/2017 -19944/911-grantprogram). The final grant regulation addressing public comments is currently under 

review at the Office of Management and Budget. 
67 


30061.021

4. Under the FAST Act, manufacturers were required to include in their Part 573 defect 

information reports part names, descriptions, and part numbers for all components 

involved in the defect or noncompliance being reported. It appears that some 

manufacturers are not complying with that mandate. 

12 

a. A number of these reports failed to include part numbers in their 573 reports, but 

were accepted by NHTSA. What are you doing to remedy those incomplete reports? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA appreciates the FAST Act's language to make recall notices 

more informative and transparent. In recent years, the number of recalls for vehicle 

and equipment defects has approached or exceeded 1,000 annually representing tens 

of millions of items. Manufacturers are required by statute to report all information 

on the forms. However, not all items of information are required at initial report and 

information often changes after a manufacturer submits its first notice to NHTSA. 

While NHTSA is diligent in following up with manufacturers who have not submitted 

all required information, the agency is creating and implementing new processes and 

procedures, in addition to updating its data systems, to facilitate these follow-up 

actions. 

b. When will NHTSA go through its process, including any notice and comment, to 

adjust the required form to better accommodate input of specific fields of entry of part 

numbers and other parts identification information? On what date will NHTSA issue 

this final rule or form so that more specific part information is included in 573 

reports? 

RESPONSE: While NHTSA plans to update its regulations to reflect this provision 

of the FAST Act, manufacturers are already required to provide this information and 

have been since section 24116 came into effect. In other words, manufacturers are 

required to provide component name, description, and part number information in the 

Part 573 recall reports they file with NHTSA. In early 2017, NHTSA provided 

guidance to manufacturers on how to submit this information on Part 573 recall 

reports. As a result, manufacturers arc not only aware of the requirement, they also 

know how NHTSA expects this information to be shared. 

The schedule for completing this rulemaking has not been determined at this time. 

Although rulemaking has not yet been initiated, NHTSA has been in communications 

with manufacturers on this requirement. NHTSA has provided guidance to 

manufacturers that they are required to provide this information on Part 573 recall 

reports and has explained where on the Part 573 report it should be documented. 

5. So far, only Waymo and GM have submitted voluntary safety assessment letters 

encouraged by NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy. I have heard complaints that 

these submissions are inadequate and that companies arc not sharing enough information 

about the safety of their vehicles with NHTSA or with the public. NHTSA has made it 

abundantly clear that these assessment letters are voluntary. These assessments may have 
68 


30061.022

13 

little value if they are simply general descriptions of a company's systems and activities. 

For those companies that do submit safety assessments, is NHTSA requesting additional 

detailed information to help the agency monitor self-driving cars? If so what information 

are you requesting? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is aware that several companies are still developing selfassessments. NHTSA is also in routine contact with a number of the companies testing 

Automated Driving Systems on public roads to understand and discuss their safety 

methods and approaches to these evolving systems. NHTSA has not established a safety 

need to request specific information from these entities at this time. 

6. In 2015, NHTSA announced plans to update NCAP with valuable new information on 

vehicles' crash avoidance technologies and their safety in crashes involving pedestrians. 

But these plans have been stalled for more than two years. On what date will NHTSA 

issue final revisions to NCAP so that consumers have up-to-date safety information when 

shopping for cars? 

RESPONSE: In 2015, NHTSA announced plans to update the New Car Assessment 

Program (NCAP). The many public comments received in response to the 2015 notice 

demonstrated a need for improved dialogue regarding the types of information that would 

be most helpful to consumers and the types of tests and rating systems that would be best 

suited to achieve program goals. The Agency has been diligently conducting research in 

order to best address the comments and better inform the public about the underlying 

improvements to the program. Furthermore, in this era of unprecedented technological 

change in vehicle safety, NHTSA is evaluating how to maintain a program that not only 

provides meaningful information to consumers, but also encourages vehicle 

manufacturers to continually prioritize safety innovations. In 2018, NHTSA plans to 

engage stakeholders on its next actions for NCAP. The Agency is considering how best 

to revise the Monroney label to include information about those crash avoidance 

technologies that have the potentia! to reduce crashes and injuries, while also serving as 

the foundational technologies of automated vehicles. 

7. On January 8, 2018, DOT announced two pilot programs to integrate new sources of big 

data into the agency's analysis of car crashes, with the goal of providing better insights to 

improve highway safety. One program would incorporate highway speed data from 

GPS-enabled devices, and the other would integrate traffic crash data from the crowdsourced mobile app Waze. I certainly support efforts to decrease traffic fatalities, but I 

do have questions about what personal data might be contained in these datasets. 

a. What steps are you taking to ensure that the use of these datasets won't infringe on the 

privacy rights of individual drivers? 

RESPONSE: Thank you for your support of our efforts to decrease traffic fatalities. 

We share your interest in protecting privacy. To that end, both pilot projects are 

using de-identified datasets under existing use and privacy agreements between the 

Department and the data providers. 
69 


30061.023

14 

The National Performance Measurement Research Data Set (NPMRDS) includes 

speeds on the National Highway System and supports the performance measures 

mandated in MAP-21. It is being examined for any insights it may provide on speed 

and rural crashes. The data delivered to the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) does not include any personal information, only average travel times 

reported every 5 minutes on the National Highway System through the data provider 

lnrix. There is no personal information or specific vehicle or probe information in the 

data set procured by FHW A. 

In a separate project, Wazc incident data is being analyzed for its relationship to State 

crash data. The Department is using this data under the W aze Connected Citizens 

Program (CCP) abides by the Waze Privacy Policy 

(https://www.waze.com/legal/privacy). Waze shares publicly available road closure 

and incident information submitted via the app by Waze users. Waze does not share 

individual driving history, nor does Waze share non-public user information. The 

data W aze shares is not linkable to identifiable information. Under the terms and 

conditions of the Waze CCP, the Department restricts access to data to only those 

personnel who are authorized to access it and the Department takes steps to ensure 

that users are bound by the terms and conditions of the Waze CCP (see: 

https://sites.google.com/site/wazcccpattributionguidelines/membership-criteria). The 

Department does not permit Waze data to be copied or shared with users that are not 

authorized to access it. 

b. Have you consulted privacy advocates and the Federal Trade Commission for 

guidance on this matter? If so, when and how are you taking their input into 

consideration? 

RESPONSE: Both projects are internal pilots, and in this preliminary stage we have 

been in contact with DOT internal privacy officers. 

8. In September, the National Transportation Safety Board released its findings related to a 

fatal 2016 crash of a Tesla Model S in Florida. In addition to driver errors, the NTSB 

determined that the vehicle allowed the driver to disengage from driving for long periods 

of time. In its report on the 2016 Florida crash, the NTSB made several 

recommendations to DOT and NHTSA. 

a. The NTSB recommended that NHTSA "[d]evelop a method to verify that 

manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems 

incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems 

to those conditions for which they were designed." How and when will NHTSA 

address this recommendation? 

RESPONSE: Manufactures continue to innovate and deploy various approaches that 

limit the use of Level 2 systems to those conditions for which they were designed. 

Nl ITSA recently completed research associated with drivers and their interactions 
70 


30061.024

15 

with these types of systems and expects to release a report on its findings in the 

coming months. Because the technology is still evolving, NHTSA has not identified a 

regulatory need at this time but we are actively conducting research in this area. The 

recently completed research could further inform vehicle designers on some of the 

potential safety issues that NTSB noted in their examination of the issue. 

b. The NTSB also recommended that DOT "[ d]efine the data parameters needed to 

understand the automated vehicle control systems involved in a crash" including "the 

vehicle's control status and the frequency and duration of control actions to 

adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash." 

The NTSB urged NHTSA to use these parameters "as a benchmark for new vehicles 

equipped with automated vehicle control systems" so that they capture important data 

and ensure it is readily available to NTSB investigators and NHTSA, at a minimum. 

What is Nl ITSA's plan and time line for implementation of this recommendation? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA has urged SAE International (SAE) to prioritize developing 

the parameters that may be necessary to reconstruct a crash involving a vehicle 

equipped with an Automated Driving System. SAE has an active working group on 

data loggers for automated driving, and NHTSA is engaged as a liaison to the SAE 

committee on this activity. 

c. The NTSB also recommended NHTSA to "define a standard format for reporting 

automated vehicle control systems data, and require manufacturers of vehicles 

equipped with automated vehicle control systems to report incidents, crashes, and 

vehicle miles operated with such systems enabled." What is NTHSA's plan and 

timeline for implementation of this recommendation? 

RESPONSE: At NHTSA's request, SAE International (SAE) has agreed to take the 

lead in developing an industry best practice for data that would be necessary to 

reconstruct crashes involving Automated Driving Systems. Towards this end, SAE 

established a committee and the work is well underway. NHTSA recently urged this 

committee to accelerate its work. NHTSA is also serving as a liaison to the SAE 

committee on this activity. 

9. In December, your Office of Defects Investigation opened a new case to look into the 

extraordinarily high failure rate for a Goodyear tire that has been used on motorhomes 

since 1996. The "G 159" tire can overheat at highway speeds, causing tread separation 

and blowout. The tire has reportedly failed on as many as I in I 0 motorhomes, resulting 

in 98 injuries and deaths over the past two decades. And yet NHTSA seems to have been 

unaware of the problem until very recently. 

a. Goodyear reported only one death and 13 injuries to NHTSA. Is NHTSA 

investigating whether Goodyear improperly concealed any critical safety data from 

the agency? If Goodyear did fail to report required tire failure incidents, what 

sanctions can and will NHTSA impose on the company? 
71 


30061.025

16 

RESPONSE: Our concerns about the data Goodyear submitted to NHTSA is one of 

the reasons why we opened our investigation. Goodyear was required to report some 

of the death and injury incidents under the TREAD Act early warning regulations. 

The agency also sent Goodyear an information request seeking data during an 

investigation into Toyo tires failing on Country Coach motorhomes. If our 

investigation reveals Goodyear failed to report information required by law, NHTSA 

may demand that Goodyear pay a civil penalty of $21,000 per violation up to a 

maximum of $105,000,000 for a related series of violations. 

b. The ODI Resume indicates that information about the Goodyear G 159 tire failure 

had been "sealed under protective order and confidential agreements, precluding 

claimants from submitting it to NHTSA." NHTSA received that information only 

when a private attorney obtained a court order authorizing release. Even if the 

claimants in lawsuits against Goodyear were prohibited from reporting the tire failure 

information to NHTSA, wasn't Goodyear required to do report such information to 

NHTSA? 

RESPONSE: Yes, these are the type of incidents that are required for reporting to 

NHTSA. One issue present in the case of the G159, however, is that many death and 

injury claims accrued well before implementation of the TREAD Act early warning 

requirements. Production of the Goodyear G !59 tire at issue began in 1996 and 

continued through 2003. Goodyear's obligation to report death and injury claims 

related to the Gl59 tire under the "Early Warning" requirements of 49 CFR Part 579 

began in the second quarter of2003 and only covered a small portion of the G159 

claims. Of course, from the time the first tire was introduced into interstate 

commerce to the present, Goodyear remained under a continuing obligation to report 

the existence of a safety-related defect in its product to NHTSA. 

c. The ODI Resume also states that "many of the incidents were not required to be 

reported under 49 CFR Part 579." Identify each specific provision of that regulation 

that NHTSA believes exempted Goodyear from reporting any G 159 failure incident 

and explain why each provision applies. Do you support amending the regulation to 

close these loopholes in the reporting requirements and, if not, why not? 

RESPONSE: At present, NHTSA does not see any loopholes in reporting 

requirements. Rather, the reason some incidents were not required to be reported 

under part 579 is because they preceded the part 579 reporting requirements. The 

Goodyear G 159 tire at issue was produced from 1996 through 2003. The final rule 

establishing the Part 579 "Early Warning" requirements was issued in July 2002. 

Section 579.26 of Part 579 requires tire manufacturers to report death or personal 

injury claims in a tire manufactured during the same year the report is due and the 

four prior production years. 

The first reports under the regulation were due in the second quarter of2003. Tire 

manufacturers did not have to provide reports on tires manufactured in or before the 

first quarter of 1999 and are not required to report death or injury claims for tires 
72 


30061.026

17 

more than five years old. NHTSA's current investigation into the G 159 tire is 

examining whether there were any violations of these or other reporting obligations. 

d. Court records reveal that Goodyear has been concealing the tire defect from the 

public for many years. In July 2017, Goodyear submitted a request to NHTSA for 

confidential treatment of the information turned over pursuant to court order. The 

public has a strong safety interest in finally being given access to that information. 

How have you responded to Goodyear's request for confidential treatment? How 

have you responded to the January 4, 2018, FOIA request that the Center for Auto 

Safety filed in this matter? 

RESPONSE: We agree that the public has a strong interest in having access to safety 

information. We denied Goodyear's initial request for confidential treatment for the 

G !59 data by a letter dated February 26, 2018. Goodyear filed an administrative 

appeal of that decision on April3, 2018 and that appeal is under review. Because the 

information sought by the Center for Auto Safety is the information at issue in that 

appeal, the FOJA request will be processed once a final determination is made on the 

request for confidential treatment. 

10. Last year, the House passed H.R. 3388, the SELF-DRIVE Act, which among other things 

expands the number and types of exemptions available to automakers. Under section 6 of 

the bill, a feature of a highly automated vehicle (HA V) for which the automaker is 

seeking an exemption would have to provide a safety level at least equal to the safety 

level of the standard for which exemption is sought or would have to provide an overall 

safety level at least equal to the overall safety of nonexempt vehicles. 

a. Please detail how NHTSA intends to evaluate the level of safety of a feature of an 

HAY or of the HAY overall and how NHTSA intends to compare that to the safety 

level of a current standard or of a nonexempt vehicle. 

RESPONSE: The data submitted in association with the exemption request, the 

specific method or approach NHTSA uses to evaluate the overall safety of the motor 

vehicle could vary. The agency will seek, evaluate and consider data from test and 

simulation results and an applicant's approach to system and functional safety, as 

well as other information that may be relevant. 

b. Does NHTSA currently have procedures or protocols for evaluating exemption 

requests under 49 USC 30113 as it is today? Please provide copies of such 

procedures or protocols. 

RESPONSE: 49 CFR Part 555 contains NHTSA's procedural regulation for 

exemption petitions. NHTSA evaluates exemption requests based on based on the 

information submitted by requesters under that regulation. NHTSA is also evaluating 

its exemption process in light of advanced technologies and plans to issue a NPRM in 

2018. 
73 


30061.027

18 

11. Consumers are concerned about privacy and cybersecurity vulnerabilities that will 

inevitably come with the increased data collection and connectivity of automated driving 

systems. And many are concerned about NHTSA's preparedness for these issues. While 

we have heard about some companies' initiatives, please detail what actions NHTSA is 

taking to be prepared to address these issues. Is NHTSA hiring or planning to hire 

privacy or cybersecurity experts? If so, when and how many? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is building its knowledge, internal response mechanisms, and 

testing capabilities to better evaluate safety issues resulting from cyber incidents. While 

we are also conducting research in several key areas, we will decide this year on whether 

to finalize the set of best practices for vehicles. NHTSA has no immediate plans to 

increase its number of cyber experts. 

NHTSA has engaged in an active dialogue with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 

manufacturers, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders about the scope and mitigation 

of potential data privacy impacts on consumers that could stem from Automated Driving 

Systems. A recent highlight of this ongoing dialogue was NHTSA's sponsorship with the 

FTC of the June 2017 workshop examining consumer privacy and security issues posed 

by automated and connected motor vehicles. Because of its relationship with the FTC, 

NHTSA does not have current plans to hire additional privacy experts. 

12. The Department of Transportation under the Obama Administration established a federal 

advisory committee called the Advisory Committee on Automation in Transportation 

(ACAT). The advisory committee was intended to assess the Department's current 

research, policy, and regulatory support to advance the safe and effective use of 

autonomous vehicles. It appears that first and only meeting of the ACAT occurred on 

January 16, 2017. !las there been any other action taken by the ACA T since that meeting 

on January 16, 2017? Please explain NHTSA's involvement with the ACAT? Please 

detail the current status of the advisory committee and any other advisory committees 

involved in the issue of automated technologies. When have they met, when will they be 

meeting in the next year, and what are their agendas? 

RESPONSE: This committee has not met since January 16, 2017. No meetings are 

currently scheduled. The DOT is currently assessing the charters of this and several other 

discretionary advisory committees, and if or how they could be best restructured. 

13. Last December, NHTSA indicated that it would address industry's petition for changes in 

how credits toward Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards are earned, banked, and 

transferred as part of the proposed rulemaking to finalize the 2022-2025 CAFE standards. 

a. Please describe what, if any, changes to CAFE credits are included within the current 

draft of the notice of proposed rulemaking scheduled for release on March 30, 2018. 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is working to complete and issue a NPRM on Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy standards and all supporting documentation, including 

information on the credits soon. 
74 


30061.028

b. We have heard that NHTSA may not meet its timeline of March 30, 2018, for the 

release of the proposed rulemaking and that it has yet to be sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. What date will the proposed rule go to OMB 

and what date will the proposed rule be released to the pubic? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is working to complete and issue a NPRM on Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy standards and all supporting documentation, including 

information on the credits soon. 

19 

c. We have heard that NHTSA is changing, revising or amending the model it is using 

to draft the proposed rule. Please share that new or revised model. Will you commit 

to ensuring the new or revised model is made public prior to the release of the 

proposed rule to the public? When can we expect the new or revised model to be 

made public? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA is working to complete and issue a NPRM on Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy standards and all supporting documentation, including 

information on the credits soon. 

14. The penalty for noncompliance with CAFE standards has not changed since 1975, when 

it was set at $5.50 per one/tenth mile per gallon for each vehicle sold. NHTSA had 

announced an increase to $14 effective in 2019, but last July the agency put that increase 

on hold. A simple adjustment for inflation since 1975 would put that penalty at $25. On 

what date will NHTSA issue a final rule on the adjusted penalty, and what will be the 

effective date? Will NHTSA commit to a penalty of at least $14 and, if not, what is the 

basis for a lower penalty? 

RESPONSE: NHTSA will issue a final rule regarding the CAFE penalty rate following 

its review of comments on its proposal to retain the $5.50 rate. NHTSA 's notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to retain the $5.50 CAFE civil penalty rate is 

available here: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentld=NHTSA2018-0017-000l&contentType=pdf. The comment period closed on May 2, 2018. 

NHTSA has not yet finalized a decision regarding the penalty rate. The civil penalty for 

CAFE noncompliance was originally set by statute in l 975, and since 1997, has included 

a rate of $5.50 per each tenth of a mile per gallon that a manufacturer's fleet average 

CAFE level falls short of its compliance obligation. As described in the NPRM, NHTSA 

proposed retaining the $5.50 CAFE civil penalty rate. The agency proposed a finding 

that increasing the rate will result in negative economic impact. 

15. DOT had been issuing monthly report on significant rules. Sec 

https://cms.dot.gov/regulations/significant-rulemaking-report-archive. In 2017, those 

reports were not issued monthly. Can you commit that any major rulemakings out of 

NHTSA will be reported on a monthly basis? 
75 


30061.029

20 

RESPONSE: NHTSA works closely with the Department of Transportation's Office of 

the Secretary to update the DOT monthly internet report. NHTSA is committed with 

DOT to the transparency, accuracy and timeliness of its information, including the 

regulatory portfolio. 

The Honorable Debbie ningell 

l. The delays in responding and in providing certainty in the regulatory landscape have 

significant real-world costs to industry, and ultimately to consumers. 

It is my understanding that NHTSA receives more than 75,000 consumer complaints each 

year, and that NHTSA publishes the complaints that arrive in the form of Vehicle Owner 

Questionnaires (VOQs) on its website with partial Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) 

to protect the privacy of the consumer who complained. However, I understand that 

NHTSA policy for many years has been to share the full VIN with the manufacturer of 

that customer's vehicle only after NHTSA opens a defect investigation into the issue that 

is the subject of the complaint. The manufacturers have said that the VOQ data is 

significantly less valuable to them without the full VIN, and that they could conduct more 

robust analyses of the VOQ data earlier if they could have access to the full VIN of the 

VOQs that involve their own vehicles as soon as those VOQs are made available. This 

would aid manufacturers in identifying potential safety defects earlier, which in turn 

would aid NHTSA's mission. 

Your budget request states that a goal for FY 2018 is to "enable the Office of Defects 

Investigation to improve its effectiveness and meet growing challenges to identify safety 

defects quickly, ensure remedies are implemented promptly, and effectively inform the 

public of critical information." (NHTSA FY 2018 Budget Request at page 29). In light of 

this goal, why isn't NHTSA moving forward to make the full V!Ns available from VOQs 

to the relevant manufacturers to enable them to help you identify safety defects quickly? 

What other considerations has NHTSA taken into account on this issue? 

RESPONSE: Vehicle owner questionnaires (VOQs) contain personal information about 

the submitter that is protected under the Privacy Act. Because the full vehicle 

identification numbers (VINs) is linkable to an individual, NHTSA is under an obligation 

to apply Privacy Act protections in disseminating VOQs. NHTSA is currently evaluating 

whether sharing a consumer's full VIN with a manufacturer prior to the opening of a 

defect investigation is consistent with Federal privacy principles. 

The Honorable Doris Matsui 

I. Ms. King, you stated that you were unsure whether an auto manufacturer could meet its 

CAFE fleet-wide target if it sold solely SUVs, despite the fact that you confirmed these 

targets take into account vehicle footprint. In fact, NHTSA's CAFE rule says that 
76 

Æ 


30061.030

21 

"[ m]anufacturers are not compelled to build vehicles of any particular size or type (nor do 

the rules create an incentive to do so)." 

My staff had a follow-up conversation with your agency during which NHTSA staff 

indicated that the situation I described is in fact possible because automakers that build 

vehicles with larger footprints - like SUVS -have proportionately higher CAFE fleetwide targets. Do you agree with this characterization from your staff? Given that the 

mix of trucks, SUVs, and smaller cars actually sold is already factored into the fleet-wide 

target, adjustment to the standards for sales trends is not necessary, correct? 

RESPONSE: The standards inherently adjust to changes in sales trends. Establishing 

footprint-based average standards for each manufacturer's fleet of vehicles result in each 

manufacturer's getting an individualized compliance obligation based on the size of the 

footprints of its vehicles and on the distribution of its vehicles among those footprints. If 

the manufacturer's fleet has a relatively large percentage of larger footprint vehicles, the 

manufacturer has a lower miles per gallon (mpg) compliance obligation; conversely, if 

the manufacturer's fleet has a relatively large number of smaller footprint vehicles, its 

fleet will have a higher mpg obligation. If, during the model year, sales move toward 

larger or smaller vehicles, the compliance obligations of each manufacturer will shift in 

response. Thus, the question of whether a manufacturer can meet its compliance 

obligation has more to do with the fuel economy performance of those vehicles relative to 

their footprint mpg "target." The issue is really whether consumers have been choosing 

to buy vehicles that fall "below" their target more often than not. When gas prices are 

low, this is more likely. If most of the vehicles a manufacturer sells fall short of their 

targets, especially if that trend is unexpected, the manufacturer will have trouble meeting 

their compliance obligation. This is part of why we are considering all of these issues 

afresh in developing the current proposal. 

2. I'm a strong supporter of innovative transportation solutions. But I'm concerned that 

some people conflate autonomous vehicle and connected vehicle technologies. Does 

NHTSA believe that the deployment of AVs is dependent on the development of vehicleto-vehicle technology? Do you believe we should be leveraging self-driving technology 

as soon as it can be deployed safely at a commercial scale in order to improve overall 

vehicle safety? 

RESPONSE: Automated Driving Systems include a variety of sensors, such as cameras 

and radars, but may not include connected vehicle technologies. NHTSA believes that 

currently available driver assist systems, such automatic emergency braking, and 

Automated Driving Systems, when they become available to the public, hold great 

promise to improve safety on our roadways. We do recognize that vehicle connectivity 

may be useful in the future to fully realize the anticipated safety and efficiency benefits 

of the transportation system. DOT fully supports the use of the currently dedicated 

spectrum for lifesaving technologies in the transportation sector.