U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

77–607 PDF 2013

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PROVISIONS IN HOUSE 

AND SENATE HIGHWAY BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2012 

Serial No. 112–130 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MARY BONO MACK, California 

Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

Ranking Member 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

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

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 5 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 7 

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

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 8 

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

of Illinois, prepared statement ............................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES

Hon. John Lewis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ....... 9 

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

David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 163 

Mitch Bainwol, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181 

Michael J. Stanton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of 

Global Automakers .............................................................................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 188 

Peter J. Pantuso, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Bus Association .................................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 193 

Victor S. Parra President and Chief Executive Officer, United Motorcoach 

Association ............................................................................................................ 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 201 

Joan Claybrook, Former Administrator, National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration, Consumer Co-Chair, Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety ........................................................................................................... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 210 

Ami V. Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union .................................. 99 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 222 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement, dated Marsh 22, 2012, of Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative 

in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, submitted by Mrs. 

Blackburn ............................................................................................................. 115 

1Mr. Strickland did not submit a statement for the record. 

(IV) 

Letter, dated March 20, 2012, from Charles A. Cannon, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Rubber Manufacturers Association, to Mrs. Bono Mack, 

submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ............................................................................. 117 

Letter, dated March 21, 2012, from Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, to Mrs. 

Bono Mack and Mr. Butterfield, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ...................... 119 

Letter, dated March 21, 2012, from Terry Emerson, Director of Quality Assurance, Dorel Juvenile Group, to Mrs. Bono Mack and Mr. Butterfield, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ................................................................................... 123 

Letter, dated March 21, 2012, from Jared Stancil, Vice President, Anchor 

Trailways & Tours, to Mrs. Blackburn, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ........... 126 

Statement, dated March 22, 2012, of the National Automobile Dealers Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ................................................................ 128 

Statement, dated March 22, 2012, of Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President, 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, submitted by Mrs. 

Blackburn ............................................................................................................. 156 

(1) 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PROVISIONS IN 

HOUSE AND SENATE HIGHWAY BILLS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

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

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

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marcia Blackburn 

(vice chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Stearns, Harper, 

Lance, Guthrie, Upton (ex officio), Butterfield, Schakowsky, and 

Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Brian 

McCullough, Senior Professional Staff Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Shannon Weinberg, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; and Will Wallace, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The subcommittee will come to order. Good 

morning, and welcome to everyone. Chairman Bono Mack has personal business in California today, and it is going to prevent her 

from joining us, and we look forward to her quick return next 

week. So I would like to begin today, as I said, by welcoming each 

of you and by yielding myself time for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

I do want to thank our expert witnesses for joining us as we examine vehicle safety provisions in the House and the Senate highway bills. We are honored to have our esteemed colleague, Congressman Lewis, with us for our first panel, Administrator Strickland, we welcome you for our second panel, and several stakeholders whose industries and interests are central to today’s hearing. 

The American people believe the auto industry can grow and 

prosper without diminishing our efforts to make our highways 

safer. These aren’t mutually exclusive goals, and they don’t need to 

be if we have the right approach. The history of the last 2 decades 

of highway safety demonstrates that industry-developed technology, combined with Federal oversight and enforcement by 

2 

NHTSA has continually reduced the number of fatalities to nearrecord lows as collected vehicle-travel rates continue to increase. 

Transportation is fundamental to our everyday lives, and highway safety deserves our special attention. The safety of our roads 

is important, and it is in everyone’s best interest. Interstate commerce, our economy, and families rely on the ability to travel safely 

in order to conduct business, earn a living, and carry out their 

daily activities. With safety always in the forefront of our minds, 

we ought to ensure our motor vehicle safety policies are framed in 

a way that ensures economic flexibility and efficiency for business, 

as well as regulatory caution and reduced uncertainty for the auto 

manufacturing industry. 

Regarding flexibility and efficiency, we know that America is a 

haven for innovators and that safety is something many consumers 

look for when purchasing a vehicle or traveling with a commercial 

bus or motorcoach company. Accidents on our roadways are not 

only an immediate danger to the passengers involved but also a 

major setback for industry, potentially harming a small business’s 

productivity and safety reputation. 

It is in the industry’s best interest to incorporate safety features 

into their vehicles and business models, and they have the expertise to understand that safety features work, how they work, how 

they interact, and how quickly they can be implemented. We need 

to consider the best ways to incentivize safety, to be flexible and 

respectful of the processes that exist, to better understand what 

works best for safety for our economy and the transportation systems. 

Regarding caution and certainty, we must exercise prudence before assuming the Federal Government knows best. Simply placing 

more mandates and regulations on industry, especially without 

proven safety benefits, will not help us reach any of our shared 

goals for safe travel. Let’s avoid regulatory whiplash by narrowly 

targeting our efforts on true harms, determining proven ways to 

make the biggest impact and reducing crashes on our roads needs 

to take precedence. 

At the same time, we need to understand what tools and resources can be offered to improve transportation safety without 

growing the size of the Federal Government and place additional 

costs on consumers. 

Businesses need certainty, and employees deserve to know their 

jobs aren’t at risk because of ill-conceived Federal regulations. 

I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today about 

their views on the state of safety within their respective industries, 

how safety might be improved, and whether there is a role for the 

Federal Government to help those efforts. With the recent passage 

of the Senate Transportation Bill, I am also interested to learn how 

provisions in the Commerce Title of MAP–21 will affect safety and 

any concerns our witnesses may have with the legislation as proposed. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

3 


77607.001
4 


77607.002
5 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for your time, and I would like to 

recognize the ranking member, Mr. Butterfield, for his opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me 

thank the chairman of the committee—subcommittee, who is not 

here today, but thank her for her leadership on the subcommittee 

and thank her for her friendship. 

Let me also thank Congressman John Lewis for coming today, 

and John Lewis is no stranger to any of us who serve in this Congress, and I want to thank him and welcome him to this subcommittee as well as the Administrator and other witnesses who 

are waiting to testify this morning. 

We have an 11:00 vote, I am told, and so I better try to expedite 

my statement and make sure that all of our witnesses can be 

heard. 

This committee has a long history of working together to advance 

vehicle safety, and I am hopeful that we can continue to be a part 

of that history today. Deaths from vehicle incidents have declined 

significantly and are at their lowest point in 60 years. Those who 

are here today as witnesses should be proud of their role in making 

that happen. 

However, far too many Americans still lose loved ones when they 

are drivers or passengers of an automobile. It is our job today, in 

my opinion, to ensure that we continue to make progress in this 

area. Today we will discuss the Senate-passed Surface Transportation Bill, as well as the version of the Surface Transportation Bill 

reported to the House Floor. Included in these measures are a 

number of provisions related to passenger and motorcoach safety 

that fall under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Arising gas prices and the economic recession will force some 

people away from traveling in cars and instead some opt to travel 

by motorcoach, and these large inter-city buses transport large 

numbers of passengers over long distances with a less expensive 

price tag, but those buses often lack key safety features like seatbelts, use of advanced glazing technology that makes windows 

stronger, and therefore, less likely to break and eject passengers in 

the event of a crash, and strong roofs to protect passengers from 

being crushed in a rollover. And these safety improvements can 

help keep passengers safer and ultimately save lives. 

I am very pleased, again, that Congressman John Lewis from the 

great State of Georgia is here today to speak about his bill, H.R. 

837, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2011, which was included as a part of the Senate Highway Bill. I strongly support Mr. 

Lewis’s efforts and hope that Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act will 

become law either as a stand-alone bill or part of a larger legislative package. 

I recently authored an amendment to H.R. 7, which I am hopeful 

can be supported on a bipartisan basis, dealing with odometer 

fraud at online auctions, and I am pleased that the Senate bill inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
6 

cluded stiffer penalties for people who violate Federal odometer reporting requirements. I hope that it will serve as a deterrent to 

those who defraud unsuspecting consumers to the tune of over a 

billion dollars annually according to a 2002 study. 

There are roughly 260 million motor vehicles on the road in the 

U.S. today, and the safety and security of passengers traveling in 

those vehicles on American roads should be paramount to policymakers, regulators, and the auto industry alike. It is clear that 

auto manufacturers agree. They have demonstrated their commitment to safety by continuously innovating and creating new technological features such as anti-lock brakes and stability controls. 

I know we can work together to get those excellent safety features on all vehicles any time and manner. Congresswoman 

Blackburn, I hope we can ultimately pass a long-term highway bill 

with strong safety provisions for passenger vehicles as well as 

motorcoaches so that the American roads are safer for all of us. 

I appreciate the witnesses being here today, and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize our full committee chairman, Mr. Upton, 

for 5 minutes to give his opening statement. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and knowing that 

the votes have been moved up I am going to ask to insert my statement into the record to expedite the process. 

So thank you very much for your leadership. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

7 


77607.003
8 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, and at this time I recognize the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Butterfield, for holding this hearing. 

In the last Congress our committee examined massive Toyota recalls and the government’s slow response to sudden unintended acceleration. We examined the reforms needed at NHTSA. The committee passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which I introduced, to 

make sure NHTSA has the expertise to keep pace with emerging 

technologies and stronger enforcement authority to ensure timely 

and effective recalls. 

Many of the provisions of this bill are included in the bipartisan 

Senate Transportation Bill, and I would like to thank Chairmen 

Rockefeller and Pryor, the Senate sponsors of the provisions for 

their leadership in moving this legislation forward. 

The Senate bill includes provisions to improve electronics expertise at NHTSA. It also mandates new safety standards to reduce 

the risk of sudden acceleration as well as standards for electronics 

systems performance. The bill includes measures to improve accountability with a higher cap on civil penalties and a requirement 

that auto safety officials certify the accuracy of information given 

to the agency. The bill has improvements in the area of transparency, it would give consumers easier access to recall information, safety bulletins prepared by manufacturers, and the early 

warning data companies submit to help NHTSA identify defect 

trends. 

All of these provisions are similar to ones we considered in this 

committee last Congress, and they are all important safety measures. 

In addition, the Senate Reauthorization Bill requires important 

new standards for child safety seats and booster seats in particular. It has mandates for strong motorcoach safety standards 

that are desperately needed but have languished at NHTSA for 

years. 

I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman John Lewis, for 

his steadfast efforts to press for action on this issue. 

Let me close by thanking Administrator Strickland for his testimony today. Your leadership along with Secretary LaHood has reenergized the agency. While we take great pride in the sustained 

decline in vehicle fatalities, we must continue to look for opportunities to save more lives. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to now yield the balance of my time 

to my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

9 

I want to reiterate that the Senate has passed the Transportation Bill that has a number of key safety provisions that will 

keep consumers safe, including children. Mr. Waxman named some 

of them. I also wanted to highlight a study and potentially a rulemaking system that could warn drivers that a child remains in the 

backseat as well as the child safety seat requirements. 

Unfortunately, the House Transportation Bill as drafted includes 

few safety measures and would actually repel Safety Belt Performance Grants, the Older Driver Safety Program, and Child Safety 

and Child Booster Seat Incentive Grants. I hope this hearing today 

will highlight the importance of the provisions of the Senate Bill 

and the other party will reconsider their approach here in the 

House. 

Auto safety should be a bipartisan issue. Just, well, I shouldn’t 

say just, 4 years ago I worked closely with Representative Peter 

King to enact the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety 

Act. That bill mandated a rear visibility rule, and we are anxiously 

awaiting finalization of that this year, and of course, it will save 

lives. 

The Senate bill with its many safety initiatives passed by an 

overwhelming vote, as has been mentioned, 74 to 22, and there is 

no reason we can’t move auto safety forward in a similar way here 

in the House. I hope we do it immediately, and I yield back to 

the—to Mr. Waxman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

We are going to have three panels today. As always, each witness 

has prepared an opening statement. The full statement will be in 

the record. You will have 5 minutes for summarizing your remarks. 

Our first panel, of course, is our colleague, Congressman John 

Lewis, and we are delighted to have you here. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes, and as always, punch the button to turn on the mic, 

watch the timer. When it turns yellow, you are going to have 1 

minute for wrap-up, and we are delighted that you are here. You 

may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Butterfield, and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

On March 2, 2007, an accident occurred in my Congressional district and made headlines across the country. A charter bus carrying 

the Bluffton University baseball team careened off a closed exit 

and crashed onto highway I–75 in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. 

It was devastating. Seven of the 35 passengers lost their lives on 

that terrible day. A university, a community, parents, teachers, 

teammates, and friends mourned. News outlets across the country 

asked, why did this happen? How can we prevent this from occurring again? 

A few days later, my office received a phone call from Dr. Jeffrey 

Salomone, one of the leading surgeons who treated the players. He 

knew the Grady doctors at the Grady hospital, one of the best trauma centers in America. These Grady doctors could have saved more 

lives if only the team had not been thrown out of their seats and 

10 

ejected from the bus. Dr. Salomone explained his painful work trying to save lives and do the patchwork. He felt strongly that much 

of it could have been prevented if only they had been wearing seatbelts. 

He stated that countless lives could have been saved had Congress acted years ago. He was furious at our inaction. He knew 

what his job was and demanded that we do ours. 

As a Nation we have learned time and time again that motorcoach accidents are rare, but when they do occur, the consequences 

are severe. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended time and time again that Congress enact stronger comprehensive motorcoach bus safety standards. Since that terrible 

dark day in downtown Atlanta, there have been 120 accidents 

across the country. One hundred and twenty. Some are small and 

occur on their local news, while others like the tragedy in Sherman, Texas, the Bronx in New York, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 

High Point, North Carolina, and most recent in Clinton, Montana, 

send a deathly reminder that Congress needs to act, and we need 

to act now. 

For me, buses are very important. They are personal. Madam 

Chair, I traveled for 6 years from rural Alabama, through Montgomery, through Birmingham, to Nashville, Tennessee, from 1957, 

to ’63, on my way to school. I grew up taking motorcoach buses, 

again, in Alabama, in Georgia, in Tennessee, in Virginia, and in 

the Carolinas. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sent me a bus ticket to 

meet him for the first time in 1958, when I was 18, and I later 

joined thousands of Freedom Riders to desegregate interstate commerce. I know all too well that buses are the lifeline of our Nation. 

It is a major means of transportation for all Americans; sporting 

teams, students, and tourists in every corner of our country. Is it 

so wrong to push for them to be safe? It is the right thing to do. 

It is the necessary thing to do. 

For 5 years we have had a bipartisan effort on this issue. Senators on both sides of the aisle have tried repeatedly to push this 

bill forward. Every time an accident occurs in their home States, 

their citizens, like mine, demand action, and we must act. 

I commend the Senate for the inclusion of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 

Bill. Recently my good friend and colleague, Congressman Ted Poe 

from Texas, joined me in offering an amendment to H.R. 7 to ensure that the House bill included equally high motorcoach standards. 

This is one of those issues where we just need to put partisan 

politics aside and get it done. The American people are demanding 

that we act. The motorcoach industry has had decades to make 

their fleets safe and safer, and time is up. Congress needs to act 

and act now, not tomorrow or next year but now. I urge each of 

you to sit back and ask yourself why you can get on a bus and have 

access to wireless service and outlets but not a seatbelt? It doesn’t 

make sense. Your window is not crash-proof, the roof is not crushresistant. Trust me. You do not want to be on the receiving end of 

a phone call from a doctor, a parent, a survivor, a child, a patient, 

a loved one in a preventable motorcoach accident. 

11 

I hope and pray that any bill that this committee puts on the 

floor will send an unmistakable message that the United States 

House of Representatives, the body of the people, speaks in a clear 

voice for safety. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Thank you, again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

12 


77607.004
13 


77607.005
14 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your testimony. 

I have no questions that I am going to ask, but at this time I 

am going to yield to Mr. Butterfield, who does have one question 

he would like to ask for the record. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Lewis, for 

your very powerful statement. I think it speaks volumes and clearly explains the issue that we have to deal with. 

But as you acknowledge, the Senate bill is somewhat different 

from the way you would like to see this handled. The Senate does 

not require a retrofitting of motorcoaches, and your bill does. 

Would you be happy with the Senate version, or do you want to 

stay with the idea of requiring retrofitting? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, no, I would love to see what it is in our bill prevail, but I am prepared to accept a compromise. I want action. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. All right. That is my question. 

Straight to the point. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

Is there anyone further seeking recognition for questions? Mr. 

Upton? Mr. Harper? Mr. Lance? OK. 

We thank you, sir, for your time. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. For our second panel we have the Honorable 

David Strickland, Administrator of the National Highway Safety— 

Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA as we love to call it. 

Good morning. We are pleased that you are here. You are recognized for 5 minutes, and as always, punch that button to get the 

mic on so that we can hear you, and watch the timer. When it 

moves to yellow, you will have 1 minute left for wrap-up, and at 

this point you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

Ranking Member Butterfield, and members of the committee. It is 

always good to be back before Energy and Commerce. 

This is a fantastic opportunity for the men and women of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to have the opportunity to discuss the Motor Vehicle Safety Provisions in the Surface 

Transportation Reauthorization. 

I can definitely speak with some experience here in terms of the 

amount of effort it takes to get one of these bills done. I had the 

pleasure and honor to serve as a staffer on the Senate Commerce 

Committee during the work on SAFETEA–LU, so I definitely appreciate the task before you and happy to be of assistance along 

with my staff at any time that you ask. 

As you know, last year the Nation continued a long-term downward trend in traffic-related fatalities. In 2010, there were 32,885 

motor vehicle-related fatalities, a 24 percent reduction compared to 

2005, and the lowest level since 1949. For all of us at the agency 

15 

this trend is encouraging, but almost 33,000 people losing their 

lives in motor vehicle crashes is a toll that is way too heavy. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working 

across multiple fronts to save lives and reduce traffic-related injuries. We continue to promote responsible driver behavior to reduce 

alcohol-impaired driving and to encourage the use of seatbelts. We 

are also working vigorously to meet the new challenge of distracted 

driving. 

At the same time we are exploring new emerging technologies 

that have the potential to prevent crashes from happening in the 

first place, which, frankly, is the moon shot for dealing with all of 

our fatalities on the roads. 

As I discuss more fully in my written testimony, the Senate has 

include a number of provisions that would permit the agency to ensure motor vehicle and equipment safety on a broader basis than 

we can today, including the authority to address safety hazards 

caused by some imported motor vehicle equipment, greater consumer protection against safety defects or non-compliance from 

manufacturers who file for bankruptcy, and increases in the total 

amount of civil penalties that NHTSA can seek for safety-related 

violations. 

To further strengthen our safety mission, we seek additional authority in several areas including the authority to require action by 

used car dealers or rental car companies with regard to recalled vehicles, clarification of authority over safety-related aspects of distracting portable electronic devices in vehicles, and the direct appellant review of recall orders to ensure that manufacturers may 

challenge orders while avoiding lengthy district court trials during 

which there is no recall in effect to protect consumers. 

We at the agency believe that these straightforward clarifications 

of authority would enable us to address timely safety concerns on 

our roadways. For example, the authority to notify consumers of recall issues before they purchase a used vehicle or rent a car could 

easily protect consumers and provide real world safety benefits. 

Here is a second example. The agency recently proposed visual 

manual driver distraction guidelines. These guidelines are designed 

for vehicle manufacturers to consider as they introduce electronic 

devices into these vehicles. However, the agency needs clarification 

of its authority concerning the safety aspects of external devices 

that can also distract drivers inside the vehicle. Here, again, clarification of the agency’s authority to do so is an important element 

in furthering the safety of those devices. 

Finally, the Senate bill includes numerous rulemaking provisions 

with some very short deadlines. I appreciate the inclusion of a provision that would allow an extension of a timeframe when necessary with an explanation to the committees of jurisdiction. This 

will permit the agency to continue to prioritize its regulatory work 

based on available resources and the judgment of the likely safety 

benefits and costs. 

Thank you, again, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before the committee today. I am happy to answer any questions that all of you may have. 

16 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your time, and 

I will tell you what, record pace getting through that opening statement, and we will try to reciprocate with our questions. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes to begin the questioning with you. 

I want to start, something was mentioned in opening statements 

about the Safety Bill Grants. I want to just seek some clarification. 

Are you not looking to repeal those grants and then reprogram that 

money for other uses? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is correct. I will be happy to answer the 

question more fully for the record, but right now it is a Section 406 

grant. It is under SAFETEA–LU, which is a Primary Belt Grant, 

which gives a very significant payment for States that have not 

passed the Primary Belt Law for the first time, and it pulls that 

incentive. 

Therefore, the reason we are asking to reprogram these funds is 

that, frankly, the States that we feel that could be pulled in by this 

incentive have taken action, and at this point right now we are 

having fairly significant resources that are not being expended, and 

we feel that we could repurpose these particular funds in a way 

that can further increase belt use but not tying up the resources 

for some States that may not decide to go in that direction of primary belts. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, and that is action you already have in 

process? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. Actually, we made technical assistance to 

the Senate in regards to this issue, and that is what they did. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Excellent. OK. I want to ask you about Cass 

Sunstein’s comments describing the guidance that is being given to 

the Federal agencies on the cumulative effects of the regulations on 

industries, and how is NHTSA planning on complying with that 

new guidance? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairman. 

This is something that frankly internally that we have always done 

in coordination with all of our rules. We always have to take into 

consideration the cumulative affect of the work that we are doing. 

It is our goal to make sure that the rules that we promulgate maximize safety benefits while taking into account the possible costs. It 

does not serve to anyone’s advantage to have redundant or unnecessary rules that do not apply or improve the prism of safety. 

So frankly, you know, I think Administrator Sunstein’s guidance 

is effectively what the agencies are already working under. That 

was a clarification of the particular guidance and intent, but our, 

in terms of our rulemaking operation, we already sort of take those 

elements into—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you have an active cost benefit analysis—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. That is in place. Would that apply 

to the last fall’s CAFE proposal and pending review visibility rule, 

the visual manual guidelines for automakers, potential 

rulemakings on advanced vehicle communications such as vehicle 

to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. For CAFE, yes, it applies. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

17 

Mr. STRICKLAND. For rear visibility, it applies. In regards to the 

visual manual guidelines, they are guidelines. They are not a rule, 

so, therefore, we did not have to take cause into effect. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. All right, and what about the vehicle communications? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That will be—right now we are making the 

agency decision as to the vehicle to vehicle, you know, systems. We 

are making the agency decision by the end of this year, which may 

then enter into rulemaking phase. When it does, prospectively if 

the agency decides to move forward with the rule in regards to the 

vehicle, the vehicle communications, then, of course, the cost benefit analysis guidance would then fall into play in terms of our 

issuance of that rule. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. We have got a fragile recovery in the auto 

industry, if you will, and so as you look at rules and guidelines and 

mandates and requirements on the car makers, what are you doing 

there for make certain that you don’t overreach and harm a recovery, that everything you are doing is—you are going to look at that 

cost benefit analysis? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, as you already referred, the 

cost benefit analysis definitely asks us to weigh the cost and the 

benefits of our rules. Thinking about numbers and factors, I mean, 

frankly, in some situations depending on the rules thousands of 

variables or factors in terms of costs and benefit and including how 

it may impact potential consumers and the industry itself. 

So in terms of our evaluations, that has been our north star in 

terms of our rulemaking effort. So in regards to CAFE and regards 

to rear visibility, we have always taken very hard looks, the two 

most recent examples of how we look at costs and benefits and how 

they may impact the fleet. 

And so absolutely we take that into account very strongly every 

time we go into a rulemaking process. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You noted in your testimony that you all are 

already working on many of the items that are in the Senate bill. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is correct. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And of those mandates that are there, the 

standards that they are looking to mandate, how many are you already working on? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, there are several. We will get back to you 

on the record specifically for the—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That would be helpful. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. But we have, we also definitely referred to our 

Research and Rulemaking Priority Plan, which we have posted on 

NHTSA.gov, which goes through the timeframes and the process of 

where we are in all of our work, but there is a significant amount 

of work in motorcoach and other places where we have undertaken 

work, and we are actually close to completion on some of those elements. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I recognize Mr. Butterfield. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. In 2009, NHTSA issued a Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. I am sure you are familiar with that, 

building off of NTSB recommendations, the plans set rulemaking 

priorities for crash avoidance, seatbelts, fire safety, emergency 

18 

egress, and ejection mitigation. A timeline for addressing these priorities was outlined in the agency’s 2011, 2013, rulemaking and research priority plan. In the past NHTSA has often not met its rulemaking timelines. That is why Congress has felt the need to step 

in and impose deadlines 

Regardless of whether the Senate bill becomes law, how do you 

intend to stick to your deadlines? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ranking Member, absolutely I will have to say 

that all of these safety issues are so important, and the timeliness 

of them and the promulgation of these issues is the highest priority 

of the Secretary and myself. We always have to recognize that this 

work has to be based on sound science, sound engineering principles, and frankly, there is a notion of sometimes the chaos theory 

and the unknown in terms of the work, in terms of how we promulgate these rules. 

However, we have very close to completion on a number of these 

rules such as the mandatory seatbelt rule for motorcoaches. We are 

on the edge of working on and possibly promulgating a proposal for 

electronic stability control in heavy-duty vehicles, for example, for 

roof crush structures and vehicle stringency, for motorcoaches. We 

are very close to working on that as well. 

So I appreciate the fact that we are well overdue. It is the Secretary’s commitment and my commitment that we hold to our 

deadlines and that we issue these rules in a timely manner. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I notice a proposed rulemaking on the seatbelt 

standard was released in August of 2010, and the comment period 

closed about 18 months ago. What is the status of this rulemaking? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Right now it is over at the Office of Management and Budget. We hope that this rule will be issued fairly soon 

in 2012. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me ask you about school buses. I just 

learned recently that school buses don’t fit within the definition of 

motorcoach. Is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is—I guess the question is motorcoach has 

an over the road, but for school buses there are definitional differences. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. And is there any type of conversation ongoing 

about whether or not these safety features should be included on 

school buses? And the reason I ask that and it has been so long 

ago, and I don’t expect anyone to remember, but in my Congressional district I guess 25 or 30 years ago, there was an awful, 

awful, awful school bus accident in which all of the children on the 

bus were actually killed, and the conversation back then and remains in that small community, you know, about seatbelts on 

school buses. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. School buses, sir, we had actually taken 

action on in terms that we have permitted the States may go forward, and they may individually decide to mandate belts on buses 

within their particular States or jurisdiction. There is not a national rule mandating belts on school buses, or it is not part of the 

rulemaking undertaking for motorcoaches. 

The reason is this. The safest form of transportation for children 

is a school bus period. There are probably a handful of deaths a 

year, maybe I think seven or eight fatalities a year because of 

19 

school bus crashes, and most of those are for children that are 

struck outside of the bus. In terms of the actual bus crashes I think 

the average would be one to two children per year versus the hundreds of thousands of miles that are traveled and the thousands 

and thousands of children that are carried by school buses. 

Adding the belts on the buses may actually decrease the number 

of buses available for children to ride, which would actually increase the number of fatalities of children because they will be 

forced to taking passenger cars. There is the structure of 

compartmentalization in buses, protects children, and frankly, the 

cost and the benefits of having the belts on buses the agency feels 

that is not the appropriate measure at this time. We feel that adding belts on buses decreases the number of buses and thereby, 

would increase the risk of children driving in passenger cars. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. In the interest of time I think I am 

going to yield back. I had one more, but I am going to yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. Would you like to 

submit that one for the record just to get a response in writing? 

OK. We will do so accordingly. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Harper for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Strickland, thank you for being here and taking this time. 

I am sure you were looking at fun things to do, and this was at 

the top of your list, but we appreciate your time. 

You know, one of the big safety concerns seems to be texting 

while driving. That is the complaint I hear more than anything 

else back home, and it is something that we certainly tell our 

friends and staff don’t do that. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We appreciate that. 

Mr. HARPER. It is certainly something. Coming in from the airport Monday we almost observed a major wreck on the interstate 

coming in from Reagan National where there was a work truck 

stopped, and it was clear they were not paying attention, and it 

was within a foot or 2 of plowing into the back of a stopped work 

truck. So, you know, it is a great concern every day for us on how 

we are going to address those issues. 

One of the questions, I know there is some talk about maybe 

blocking cell phone usage of drivers. Is that something that you are 

looking at, any aspect of that, or just texting? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Harper. 

The Secretary’s leadership over the past 3 years on distractions has 

really sort of given, frankly, the entire country leadership and guidance on this emerging threat. From his work on the two distraction 

summits and frankly, his direction to all the mobile administrations, including mine, things that we could do to address distraction risks in our particular motor vehicles. 

Clearly, the usage of devices in motor vehicles poses a very significant threat. We lost over 3,000 people in 2010, to distractionrelated crashes. In terms of your question regarding technologies 

that may be used to intervene, we are looking at several possible 

technology pipelines as possibilities for further research, but right 

now we are really focused on our distraction plan, which the first 

element is the visual, manual guidelines that are right now in the 

proposal and comment period, and that closes on April 24. And 

20 

then our next work will begin then on nomadic devices and then 

of those commands or cognitive impact of using these devices. 

Mr. HARPER. Is there any plan or do you support—I know some 

localities have cell phone bans—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. You know, and driving. Is that something that you are looking at technology wise to restrict driver 

usage of cell phones? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. At this point right now our review of the technologies we don’t see a viable pathway technologically for cell 

phone blocking because the thing called spillover, you can basically—you have, say, a jamming signal in a vehicle. It doesn’t stay 

in one vehicle, it spreads to other vehicles. There is a similar issue 

that is corollary but not necessarily direct connected where I know 

in the penal system that they are looking at possibly having cell 

phone jammers to keep prisoners from using cell phones, and they 

have the very same issues. It spills out and over well outside the 

borders of the jail and impacts actual consumers. 

So in terms of that particular issue we don’t see a particular 

promise in that technology, but we not sort of on a pathway of 

analysis of trying to figure out a technological way to stop cell 

phone usage in the car. We are not doing that type of—— 

Mr. HARPER. Of course, distracted driving has been an issue 

since the first AM radio got put in the first car. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. And so I know that we certainly don’t want to interfere with anyone’s ability to enjoy themselves while they are driving, but the texting is certainly something that we are interested 

in working on to work with you on that particular issue. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, the one other thing I would like to definitely underscore, Mr. Harper, I think you made a very good point. 

You know, distraction is more than just a phone. Distraction is 

more than just an android device or whatever the case may be. 

There is an element of personal responsibility that has to be involved with every driver. So as much as we are working on making 

sure the vehicle doesn’t create more risk, it is also important to underscore that to make sure that people recognize that your only job 

behind the wheel is to drive. 

So thank you very much for noting that, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Now, I will yield back the balance of time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

At this time Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I will be very brief. I wanted to 

tell you, Mr. Strickland, that I got a very much appreciated call 

from the Secretary about the rulemaking and the rear visibility in 

vehicles, that the standard that I hope will come out, and while I 

am disappointed that it didn’t come out in February as it was originally scheduled, he explained his absolute commitment to getting 

it done. 

So just for the record I wanted to thank you, and I also wanted 

you to comment on your commitment to issuing a strong rule and 

whether it is at all possible to move up that timeline. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ms. Schakowsky, I absolutely give the very 

same commitment the Secretary gave to you. As I have had the 

21 

honor to work with you on this particular issue as a staffer, and 

I remember beginning work on this issue in 2003, I am very proud 

of a lot of the work that I was able to share and assist members 

on over the years, but I will say the Cameron Gulbransen Act is 

probably one of the highlights in terms of what I think is such a 

special rule because it is about children’s safety. 

So for that we at the agency want to make sure that we get this 

rule right, and we want to make very special care to do that, but 

absolutely we are laser focused on working through those issues 

and getting this, getting the rule promulgated as the Secretary 

issued the deadline. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. About two children get 

killed every month, so the sooner the better. Right. 

The other thing that you alluded to in your testimony, you briefly 

mentioned, under current law there is a loophole that allows rental 

car companies to lease out vehicles that are under safety recall 

without making the repairs. I frankly was pretty startled to find 

that out, and in 2004, two sisters, Rachael and Jacqueline Haugh, 

were killed in a Chrysler PT Cruiser that was under recall for 

steering problems yet rented out by Enterprise. The steering column malfunctioned, the car caught fire, and they veered into the 

path of an ongoing tractor trailer. 

I can’t understand why there is any excuse for rental companies 

to loan out cars to individuals without making the necessary repairs which manufacturers usually provide for free. 

So you talked on this issue, and I wanted to know what authority 

NHTSA has or needs to prevent these avoidable accidents. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ms. Schakowsky, the Department provided 

technical assistance to the Senate in regards to this issue. You are 

absolutely right. Right now rental car companies and used car companies have no obligation under law to fix a repair that has been 

issued under the Safety Act, which means you have unwitting and 

unsuspecting consumers that may be getting in vehicles that are 

not repaired and putting themselves at risk. These companies are 

in the stream of commerce, and I don’t think that any consumer 

whatsoever should have an expectation or worry that the next car 

they rent may not be properly repaired and put their lives at risk. 

So we very much support the proposition of giving this authority 

under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to then cross apply our enforcement authority over rental car companies and used car dealers so 

that we can make sure that these cars get repaired. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much, and once again, thank 

you for all the work that you have done on the rear visibility rule, 

and I hope that we will see it as soon as possible. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank the gentlelady for yielding back, and at 

this time I recognize Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Hey, thank you for coming here today. Appreciate 

having you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Looking at the Senate Highway Bill, it has a lot 

of new requirements that you are going to have to put forth, some 

like the device recorder, the black box, and the push button ignition standards, and it asked you to move forward on rulemaking 

22 

in some areas that your group is still studying, it puts a lot of mandates for you to do over the next course of the bill, and I guess my 

question is do you feel like that is going to overwhelm what you 

do? I know you are probably not overstaffed, and are you going to 

have to pull people from one project. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Au contraire. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. You are, you say are? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Oh, no. Overstaffing, quite the contrary. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Oh. I know you are not. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. We have a very active and vigorous force 

of 600. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Exactly. That is what I figured. So all these new 

mandates come down. Does this concern you in your ability to finish projects you are on? Are you going to have to move people from 

one project to another? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Guthrie, we have a research and rulemaking priority plan which is based on data and risk. We work 

very hard to make sure that we allocate our resources in a way 

that we save the most lives in terms of the work that we do. While 

we recognize that in terms of our own analysis, there is clearly 

other issues that the Congress may ask us to take up, and we are 

more than willing and happy to do, but it has to be done in the 

context of recognizing that these have to be done within the context 

of the other rules that we are working on, which really do have a 

broad impact to save lives. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Every additional rule does add more burden. 

Then we definitely ask for, I guess, the ability to be able to adjust 

deadlines, you know, with the Secretary notifying the committees 

of jurisdiction of the reasons why we had to make those particular 

moves. But we will say that the deadlines in the Senate bill are 

incredibly aggressive. Frankly, I don’t think that as they are currently written we would not be able to make those deadlines just 

by the very nature of regular rulemaking we would make those 

deadlines. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Uh-huh. That is good to know, because I know 

your rulemaking process you assign by risk, as you just said, and 

so if the number one thing you are working on is the number one 

thing that is going to save lives, then as you move down, then if 

all the sudden you get these mandates from the outside, and of 

course, it is within the purview of Congress, it is something we 

need to understand that as we put new mandates on you, that either—if they were in your queue already at the high part of your 

queue, they would be high risk because that is what you are looking at. 

So we are going to ask you to pull people off of other projects it 

sounds like if we pass the deadlines that the Senate put into place. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We would ask to be able to work with the committees of jurisdiction on being able to establish timeframes to accomplish all the safety goals that they are asking. The things that 

are highlighted in the Senate bill are important. They are risks, 

but we always, I want to make sure that we can sort of align our 

resources and our workload so we can best address the risks that 

affect most people. 

23 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And one other question. I know there is a 2-year 

ban for somebody that works for your commission, I guess, agency—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Uh-huh. 

Mr. GUTHRIE [continuing]. To go work in the private industry 

when they are—and I know there are a lot of people that are automotive engineers that have specific skills or so forth, and you may 

want to hide them from private industry because I have been to 

proving grounds, test grounds, and things. These are highly-skilled 

people, highly-educated people who do this for private industry trying to make sure they have safety and security because we know 

our automotive suppliers want to put out safe vehicles. 

But if you needed somebody with those kind of technological ability and they knew that they came and worked for you for some 

number of years or a brief period of time and couldn’t go back, is 

that a problem in recruiting I guess is my question, the 2-year ban? 

Do you think that is going to be an issue for you? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Guthrie, the Obama administration holds 

our ethics obligations to the highest level. We believe that our guiding light should be making sure that we serve the American people 

in an honest and forthright way. 

However, we also believe that the ethics rules should be thought 

about and considered and applied in a federally-consistent manner. 

I think one of the impacts that you highlighted is that when you 

single out a particular agency, whether it is ours, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or others, you have unintended consequences. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Uh-huh. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We are more than happy to have a dialogue 

with the committee to discuss ways that we can work—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Because this—I am about out of time. This doesn’t 

ban them from lobbying. This bans them from going back and 

working in private industry. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That is correct. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. In the field. So if you have highly-technical vehicle 

engineers, and our automotive people have them, they have them 

working for them because they are in the business of putting out 

a safe product, and therefore, these people would really be banned 

for you to hire because it would hurt their careers. And they’re not 

talking about going back and trying to influence policy. They are 

going back and making—going back and forth to make sure we 

have safe vehicles on the road. I am familiar with the industry. 

That is why I think that that is going to limit you in hiring those 

kinds of people. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Mr. Guthrie, we are always mindful of 

trying to make sure we are blessed with some of the best automotive talent in the world that works for our agency. We are always mindful of the ability to be able to recruit and compete, you 

know, good talent going forward, and anything that we could do to 

make sure that we have clearly the highest ethical standards that 

are federally consistent and the ability to be able to actively compete, not only with private industry to bringing in the best but 

frankly other agencies across government to bring in the best talVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
24 

ent. It is always something that we would be happy to discuss with 

the committee and hopefully find a way forward. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank the gentleman for yielding back, and I 

do not think we are going to do a second round. I just have two 

additional questions that I wanted to highlight with you and get 

your input. 

In the Senate bill why didn’t that include a reauthorization for 

your vehicle safety programs? I think it did you highway programs 

but not your vehicle. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Point of order, Madam Chairman. Are we 

going to do a second round or not do a second round? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If you would like to do a second round—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, it appears that you are engaged in a second round which is contrary to what I thought the agreement was. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We can do a second round if everyone would 

like to. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I am just trying to get—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have two further questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [continuing]. The third panel on queue here. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, sir. We are, too. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, well, I thought we had an agreement. Apparently we don’t. Consider this the second round. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We will do so. 

So what we would like to hear is why didn’t the Senate bill include a reauthorization for those vehicle safety programs. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ms. Blackburn, I can’t speak to the decision 

that the Senate made in terms of why they constructed the bill 

that they did. We provided technical assistance, and they made a 

decision not to include that particular provision. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Thank you. Did you have any input on 

that decision? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We were asked. The Senate Commerce Committee and the other committees of jurisdiction of the Senate asked 

the agency for technical assistance. We provide direct technical assistance. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We don’t—we are not involved in any policy decisions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is great, and then does electronic stability 

control present different challenges for different types of vehicles, 

or is it simply a matter of installing the same technology that has 

already been developed for smaller vehicles? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is very different. There are so many different 

variables in establishing electronic stability control in heavy-duty 

vehicles. I presume that is what you are asking. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. And there is stability, there is roll stability, 

there is a number of other elements, there are different tests and 

protocols. It is a wildly different animal which will take time for 

us to make sure that we get it right. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. So you are just seeking further time? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We are working, we are currently working on 

the proposal, but in terms of your question, which is are light vehiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
25 

cles, electronic stability control cross applicable to heavy duty, the 

answer is no, they are not. We have to undertake new work to do 

so. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. With that, that is the extent of the questions that we were seeking. 

Mr. Butterfield, I recognize you for a second round. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. Thank you. 

Administrator, in previous testimony to this committee you have 

expressed concern that the maximum civil penalty the agency can 

seek from a manufacturer is set in the statute at only $15 million 

per case, which adjusted for inflation comes to a little over $7 million in today’s dollars. In 2010, it is assessed that maximum allowable penalties at the time against Toyota, $16.4 in one case, $16 

million in another, for a total of $32 million. 

NHTSA noted in a letter to the company that without this cap Toyota could have been assessed penalties for $13.8 billion. If Senate 1813 were to become law, there would be the potential for increased civil penalties up to $250 million per case. 

Question. How would increasing the civil penalties’ cap strengthen the agency’s ability to enforce safety rules? How would it affect 

your interactions with the auto companies? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Butterfield, we have the obligation, the 

duty to protect American safety regarding traffic crashes, and 

thereby, we regulate some of the largest industries on planet 

Earth. And frankly, a maximum penalty of over $17 million is 

frankly a pittance to most of these I guess full-line vehicle manufacturers. 

For us to be able to have a higher deterrent value, being able to 

not have to go into an enforcement posture in the first place, and 

therefore, use resources and time for investigating, we feel that a 

more significant penalty would frankly create a greater incentive 

for manufacturers to comply with the rules without us having to 

expend more resources to investigate and enforce. 

We feel that it is high time that these particular penalties are 

reflective of the size of the industry, and therefore, we gave technical assistance to the Senate, and we are happy that the Senate 

did include an increase in the civil penalty provision. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, I would like to correct one 

thing for the record. My apologies. Your question you asked me 

about motorcoach belt safety, I apologize that factually the final 

rulemaking is within the Department of Transportation. It has not 

gone over to OMB yet, but we have finished our particular work. 

It is right now in review within the Department. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you for the correction. We will note it 

in the record. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. At this time I recognize—Ms. Schakowsky 

passes. 

Mr. Strickland, we thank you. You are always generous with 

your time, and we thank you for coming before us today, and with 

there being no further questions from the panel, we would dismiss 

you, and have a very brief recess while we set our third panel for 

the day, and, again, we thank you for your generosity of time. 

26 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We look forward 

to working with the committee. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And our witnesses for the third panel, we are 

moving right along this morning, so Mr. Butterfield was just saying, well, if we had 3 minutes for each opening statement we could 

do this in 18 minutes, but we will not rush you. We will not rush 

you. I assure you. 

Our witnesses in the order that they will give us their testimony 

this morning, Mitch Bainwol, who is the President and CEO of the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Next is Michael Stanton. He 

is the President and CEO of Global Automakers. Our third witness, 

Victor Parra, President and CEO of United Motorcoach Association. 

Our fourth witness, Peter Pantuso, President and CEO of the 

American Bus Association. Our fifth witness is the Honorable Joan 

Claybrook, former NHTSA Administrator and Consumer Co-Chair 

of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Our final witness 

is Ami Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel at Consumers Union, Political, and Action from Consumer Reports. 

We are delighted that each of you are here. We thank you for 

your time and for the preparation in your testimony. You are each 

going to be recognized for 5 minutes. I would remind you all, move 

the microphone toward you, touch the button to turn it on. When 

you see the light turn yellow on the timer, you have 1 minute to 

wrap up. 

Mr. Bainwol, you may begin. 

STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; MICHAEL J. STANTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS; 

PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; VICTOR S. PARRA, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION; JOAN CLAYBROOK, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, CONSUMER CO–CHAIR, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; AND AMI V. 

GADHIA, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL 

Mr. BAINWOL. Chairman Blackburn, Mr. Butterfield, on behalf of 

12 leading car companies, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

today. I am Mitch Bainwol, President of the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers. I represent three U.S. base companies, as well as 

nine iconic European and Japanese brands. Our companies sell 

three of four cars purchased in the U.S. 

I am pleased to say that our industry is leading America out of 

recession after a nearly catastrophic 2008 and ’09, car sales were 

up about 10 percent each of the last 2 years, with forecasts strong 

for 2012 as well. Domestic and foreign-based companies are adding 

shifts, plants, and jobs in the United States. Exports are rising 

again. BMWs from South Carolina, BWs from Tennessee, Toyotas 

from Kentucky, Mercedes from Alabama, and Detroit three products moving literally all over the globe. All tolled eight million 

27 

Americans owe their employment to this sector, at least 10,000 employees in each of 47 States. 

So it is an honor to represent manufacturers who view safety in 

a very serious way and employ thousands of engineers who work 

every day to make the vehicles safer, and the results are striking. 

I think we are going to have a slide brought up. Perhaps not. There 

we go. 

[Slide.] 

OK. As you can see from this slide, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a trend line tells a pretty compelling story. What you 

have from—on the yellow line is the vehicles miles traveled, moving from roughly 500 billion miles to 3 trillion miles from 1950 to 

2010. Then you have a line going in the inverse direction, and that 

is the fatality rate. So it is really a stunning success story. I don’t 

mean to say that the job is done, but I think this slide as a predicate for today’s hearing really does tell a very compelling story. 

And I would say that the prognosis for future gains is outstanding. We are at the dawn of a new golden age in safety developments. Driver assist technologies that dramatically enhance 

crash avoidance are already in dealerships today. Technologies like 

blind spot alerts, lane departure warnings, autonomous breaking, 

adaptive cruise control, and more. 

Two weeks ago I was in Sweden where I test drove a Volvo with 

city safety, and that is Volvo’s technology that assists drivers with 

automatic braking in certain cases. The Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety here took a snapshot of accidents with the Volvo 

XE60 equipped with this technology and found a 27 percent reduction in front-end collisions relative to similar vehicles. A 27 percent 

reduction. 

The implications for the safety of drivers and passengers, for insurance rates, for traffic flow, and for fuel economy is nothing short 

of profound, and that is just one technology. So the goal as a matter of policy must be to maximize the rate of innovation. A review 

of the Senate reauthorization hinges on that concept. Do the provisions enhance the ability of automakers to invent and implement 

new technologies or not? Do the provisions help or hinder consumers to access these new technologies? 

With innovation in mind we have three particular concerns with 

the Senate bill. First, Section 304 seeks to reverse existing NHTSA 

policy and recent court decisions regarding the early warning reporting data. While transparency generally is a good idea, we agree 

with NHTSA and the courts that existing regulations strike the 

right balance between publically-available data and confidential 

business information. 

The early warning system was specifically designed so that 

NHTSA could benefit from the widest-possible universe of information but would also be responsible for screening the data to avoid 

precipitating, premature, and potentially misplaced panic among 

drivers, and that would stimulate costly and baseless litigation and 

inhibit innovation. 

Second, relating to Section 406, the Alliance supports equipping 

new vehicles with event data recorders, EDRs, with sufficient lead 

time to implement this technology for those few manufacturers who 

have not yet done so. Yet 406 both requires NHTSA to conduct a 

28 

study on the privacy implications from expanding the scope of the 

EDRs and mandates a second rulemaking in a short timeframe, regardless of the outcome of that study. Rulemaking without first 

concluding the study puts the cart before the horse. Congress and 

the public should have a clear understanding of the privacy implications as well as the cost consumers will absorb before the agency 

writes a new rule. 

And third, the Senate bill targets the auto industry in a baseless, 

counterproductive, and punitive fashion. It tends to signal the auto 

employees throughout this country that policymakers are hostile to 

the sector by imposing civil penalties 15 times the magnitude of 

penalties facing other manufacturers, also large businesses, of consumer products. The rationale for this super penalty is flawed. Its 

imposition would damage our ability to compete and provide jobs, 

and it would divert resources that would be better spent in innovation. 

Today the average car on the road is about 11 years old. That 

average car doesn’t have electronic stability control. It doesn’t have 

sophisticated airbags, it doesn’t have features like voice control to 

keep eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. It doesn’t have the 

new driver assist technologies that I spoke about. The average car 

probably gets mileage 20 percent worse than today’s cars that are 

comparable, and it doesn’t have current advanced environmental 

controls. 

The illustration makes a very simple point. The best thing we 

can do for consumers is not just facilitate innovation but facilitate 

replacing old cars with new cars for safety, for the environment, for 

the health of the economy we should make cars as safe, I am sorry, 

as affordable as possible. That, of course, means that we have to 

be careful not to price cars out of reach with noble intent but counterproductive regulatory access. 

Many thanks for this chance to participate. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

29 


77607.006
30 


77607.007
31 


77607.008
32 


77607.009
33 


77607.010
34 


77607.011
35 


77607.012
36 


77607.013
37 


77607.014
38 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

Mr. Stanton, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. STANTON 

Mr. STANTON. Yes, and in the spirit of Mr. Butterfield’s suggestion, I will be brief. I do want to note that the provisions that are 

in the House and the Senate bill that extend incentive grant funding for programs to improve safety belt use and implement alcohol 

and impaired driving measures, countermeasures are extremely 

important. We believe these programs should be funded. 

Generally, where the Senate has prescribed something but 

NHTSA is already proceeding with rulemaking, we would support 

the continuation of the NHTSA rulemaking, and this includes 

things such as brake pedal override, push button ignition systems, 

mandatory installation of EDRs, and pedal placement, which they 

are looking at. We think that is appropriately a research project 

and not subject for rulemaking at this time. 

There are a couple of provisions in the Senate bill, though, that 

are problematic. The bill proposes increases in non-compliance penalties reaching levels that are disproportionately higher than those 

under other current regulatory laws. Vehicle manufacturers take 

their safety compliance obligations extremely seriously, and the 

substantial increase in the penalty amount seems to be unnecessarily and unfairly punitive. 

The bill would also create a presumption in favor of public disclosure of manufacturer-submitted information relating to potential 

defects. This information is manufacturing quality data which has 

substantial competitive value. This matter has been previously and 

carefully considered by the agency and the courts, and we see no 

need to revise the balance that has been struck. 

The Senate bill would also add an additional civil penalty to existing criminal penalties for submitting false information and reports to NHTSA. Layering additional civil fines on top of potential 

criminal penalties for making false statements to the government 

is unnecessary and unlikely to enhance motor vehicle safety. 

And also the section on event data recorders is overly prescriptive. NHTSA currently has several rulemaking proceedings underway or planned to address these matters. It would be more appropriate to allow NHTSA to complete its investigations and issue 

rules based upon a full and comprehensive analysis of these complex matters. 

And finally, we believe it would be premature for Congress to 

mandate changes to the NHTSA recall process. NHTSA is conducting a comprehensive review of the recall process based on the 

Government Accountability’s June 15, 2011, report. Congress 

should refrain from imposing any new mandates on the recall process without benefit of this review. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:] 

39 


77607.015
40 


77607.016
41 


77607.017
42 


77607.018
43 


77607.019
44 


77607.020
45 


77607.021
46 


77607.022
47 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Pantuso, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PETER J. PANTUSO 

Mr. PANTUSO. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

ABA has been working to making bus travel safer for many 

years. We worked with the late Congressman Paul Gilmore and in 

recent years with Congressman Bill Shuster on legislation that has 

really formed the basis for H.R. 7 Safety Provisions. 

ABA represents 4,000 members, 800 of those are bus companies 

representing 60 percent of all the private motorcoaches on the road 

today. Our members provide a variety of transportation services including schedule service, charter and tour, and commuter service, 

and the industry provides more than 270 million passenger trips 

annually. 

It is clear that the bus industry is the safest form of surface 

transportation, however, accidents do happen, and we know that 

one fatality is one too many. ABA has reaffirmed our support for 

full implementation of DOT’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. We 

provide member safety ratings on our Web site to assist consumers 

in finding safe bus companies, and we regularly review their 

records and ask unsafe companies to leave the association. 

ABA and its members believe there should be seatbelts on new 

motorcoaches. Our public comments submitted to NHTSA on this 

regulation are very clear. 

We agree with proponents of S. 1813 that advanced window glazing, roof crush strengths, emergency egress, fire detection and suppression, and stability control must be studied. If appropriate rulemaking is required, they must be initiated if they find problems in 

their research. 

But, however, the time limits in the Senate bill are just too tight. 

NHTSA’s recent multi-year experience of developing a seatbelt 

standard serves as a prime example of why adequate time is needed to structure a science-based approach which includes proper research and testing to save lives. 

And I want to stress this point. Our goal is to save lives and ensure the viability of our industry, not to promulgate one size fits 

all rules. Automobiles and airplanes both have seatbelts, but both 

are very different types of belts, seats, and restraint systems. ABA 

is concerned that S. 1813’s rush to get new rules out will take precedence over issuing the right rules. 

ABA also believes that NHTSA’s multiple motorcoach 

rulemakings should be done in concert with one another. What we 

don’t want to see is a rulemakings conclusion that negates the 

prior rulemaking safety benefits. For example, is testing determines that to enhance vehicle performance at a rollover windows 

should be strengthened or bonded to the coach as they are in Europe, that decision could impact adequate egress since in the U.S. 

windows are part of the exit systems. But if the decision is made 

on windows and it has already been finalized, the agency would 

need to restart that rulemaking process. 

The Senate bill also allows NHTSA to order retrofits of 

motorcoaches that could force a complete reengineering of the vehiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
48 

cle and force many small businesses out of business. Operators can 

comply with requirements of attaching readily-available equipment, 

but operators are very small business people, and much like you 

or I, they can no more be expected to remanufacture a coach than 

we could reengineer the vehicle that we purchase. 

We feel that early adoption of the new technology is also clear, 

and that tax credits, grants, and loans to small operators are key. 

Without this support the operators will have to bear the brunt of 

as much as $70,000 in additional capital costs and unfunded mandates. 

ABA is concerned that the Senate bill does not have any provision for operators’ liability protection in those cases where the bus 

operator is compliant with current Federal mandates. 

Please know that our differences with some of the provisions of 

S. 1813 does not diminish our desire for a strong and robust bus 

safety provisions. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I suggest that there must be 

also an increase in safety enforcement of existing regulations and 

consistent enforcement has enabled the illegal carriers to operate 

freely in too many markets. FMCSA must be given the authority 

to adequately close companies and to impound their busses if need 

be. Data shows that more than half of the motorcoach fatalities 

that have taken place over the past decade were caused either by 

known unsafe carriers or illegal carriers, and these fatalities 

should have never occurred. 

We applaud FMCSA for its current enforcement actions including 

the safety sweeps by combining Federal, State, and local taskforce, 

and we know that working together with this committee, other 

committees that we can make the safest form of surface transportation even safer. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pantuso follows:] 

49 


77607.023
50 


77607.024
51 


77607.025
52 


77607.026
53 


77607.027
54 


77607.028
55 


77607.029
56 


77607.030
57 


77607.031
58 


77607.032
59 


77607.033
60 


77607.034
61 


77607.035
62 


77607.036
63 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. PARRA. 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR S. PARRA 

Mr. PARRA. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member 

Butterfield, and members of the committee. I appreciate you calling 

this hearing today and the opportunity to appear before this committee and represent the bus and motorcoach industry. This committee has a long and distinguished record of promoting vehicle 

safety and lies at the center of this Nation’s discourse on best practices to achieve safe and efficient travel. 

On behalf of the United Motorcoach Association it is my goal to 

provide the committee our perspective on the Bus and Motorcoach 

Safety Provisions included in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, H.R. 7, as reported by the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee, and those of S. 1813, the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century, as passed by the Senate last 

week. 

Founded in 1971, United Motorcoach Association is the Nation’s 

largest association of bus and motorcoach companies and industry 

suppliers with over 1,200 members located across North America. 

Membership represents the full spectrum of bus and motorcoach 

operations from small family charter and tour to nationwide schedules and commuter service operations. 

The United States Small Business Administration estimates that 

over 90 percent of the privately-owned bus and motorcoach companies meet the definition of a small business. Motorcoaches have one 

of the strongest safety records amongst all modes of transportation 

with an average of only 20 fatalities a year. While even on fatality 

is one fatality too many, the motorcoach industry operates in an 

environment that yields over 32,000 fatalities annually, representing less than one-tenth of 1 percent of those fatalities. 

UMA believes the best way to ensure improved safety is to enforce existing Federal motor carrier safety regulations and support 

safety initiatives that are backed by science, research, and testing. 

While the—with the life expectancy well over 20 years, a modern 

motorcoach represents a financial investment of $500,000 to 

$600,000. Consequently, our industry demands vehicles that offer 

the best known design and construction that protects their passengers operationally from unforeseen accidents. UMA steadfastly 

welcomes changes in motorcoach occupant protection; however, 

those changes must be founded by science and testing by appropriate Federal agencies. Any mode of transportation that provides 

720 million passenger trips annually demands the best science and 

regulations our Federal agencies can produce. 

We believe H.R. 7 provides the most rational and reasonable approach to enhanced bus and motorcoach safety. Most of its provisions were largely based on the bill authored by Congressman Bill 

Shuster, H.R. 1390, which we strongly support, because it recognizes the complexities of motorcoach engineering and operations, 

mandating that science must drive policy and not the reverse. 

H.R. 7 incorporates the long-standing recommendations of the 

National Transportation Safety Board and is consistent with the 

Secretary of Transportation’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. InVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
64 

deed, NHTSA is well on its way with crash tests that have resulted 

in proposed rulemaking, requiring three-point seatbelts for every 

passenger. UMA supports this proposed rulemaking. 

Furthermore, our industry manufacturers have been proactive in 

installing seatbelts. In fact, in a study that we did with our motorcoach manufacturers, we learned that about, in fact, 100 percent of 

the motorcoaches put in service in the last year included seatbelts. 

In contrast, UMA strongly opposes the Bus and Motorcoach Safety Provisions included in this 1813. We believe the safety provisions are an example of extreme government overreach and will not 

lead to increased motorcoach safety. Many of its mandates are 

overlapping, unnecessary, and are currently under, already under 

research and testing by Federal agencies. 

Moreover, many of the mandates are simply unworkable within 

the timeframes allotted. The motorcoach tour and travel industry 

is an important economic engine in our country. It contributes 

nearly $112 billion in total economic activity in the United States. 

At a time when the motorcoach industry is struggling to recover in 

this economy, this is not a time to impose unnecessary and excessive mandates on industry with an outstanding safety record. 

In conclusion, you may believe that the contrast between the Bus 

and Motorcoach Safety Provisions in the House bill and Senate bill 

could not be more striking, and we appreciate this committee’s 

focus on that. UMA stands ready to contribute to ongoing efforts 

to enhance safety of bus and motorcoach operations. 

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parra follows:] 

65 


77607.037
66 


77607.038
67 


77607.039
68 


77607.040
69 


77607.041
70 


77607.042
71 


77607.043
72 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you, and Ms. Claybrook, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Joan Claybrook. I am 

here representing the Advocates of Highway and Auto Safety, a coalition of consumer health safety and insurance companies. 

For the past 20 years passage of a Surface Transportation Bill 

under the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats has resulted in the adoption of some of the most significant advances in 

highway and auto safety that have literally saved thousands of 

lives prevented millions of injuries, saved billions of dollars in 

healthcare and societal costs, and this year’s bill should be no different. 

For these reasons we want to move forward with this unfinished 

agenda that we have spelled out in our full statement. The Senate 

passed Transportation Bill S–1813 or MAP–21 as it is called, 

adopted with strong bipartisan support, includes many important 

vehicle safety protections for families whether they are traveling by 

car or by intercity motorcoach. 

The MAP Bill which we support requires NHTSA to issue new 

safety standards to ensure complex electronic systems that control 

the vehicle meet minimum quality and safety concerns as they 

must today in aircraft. Other provisions would require vehicle 

brake systems that can always overrun accelerator control and foot 

pedals for the brake and accelerator that are not located too closely 

together. 

Additionally, the bill would ensure consumers have better access 

to agency information about safety-related data, recalls, and defects. Other provisions addressed, whistleblower protection, conflicts of interest by former NHTSA employees, and corporate accountability for document submissions to ensure that the government safety investigations proceed without impediment. 

It also directs agency actions to better protect children inside impact crashes, improve child-restraint anchoring systems, increase 

seatbelt usage with rear seatbelt reminders, and address the risk 

of horrific death among young children inadvertently left behind in 

hot vehicles. 

Nearly 725 million motorcoach trips are taken annually, almost 

matching the number of airline trips taken annually, and as one 

of my colleagues here said, motorcoaches stay on the highway for 

about 20 years. So when you make an improvement of safety in a 

motorcoach, it is going to do a safety protection for people day after 

day, year after year after year. And the total cost the Senate bill 

is 10 cents a trip. I am sure that every American would be willing 

to pay 10 cents a trip to be assured of the safety protections in that 

Senate bill. 

Unfortunately, motorcoaches are not held to the same high safety 

standard as passenger vehicles or commercial aviation today. Because motorcoaches carry up to 55 passengers, when a crash does 

occur, it is both catastrophic and it is deadly. Attached to my statement is a chart describing over 178 motorcoach crashes since 1990, 

that have killed 317 people and injured 3,000. For more than 40 

73 

years the National Transportation Safety Board, that we rely on for 

these issues, has investigated fatal motorcoach crashes and issued 

numerous recommendations, many on the agency’s most wanted 

list, most wanted to be installed in new vehicles. 

Yet these recommendations to improve occupant protection in a 

crash have been ignored or delayed at the Department of Transportation. We know what to do to protect them, the people who ride 

in these buses, an enactment of the MAP–21 directs DOT to take 

actions with many reasonable deadlines on many of the most critical NTSB recommendations. 

The motorcoach safety language adopted by the Senate includes 

what we call the Greyhound Compromise, which was negotiated 

and agreed to last summer. Not only did Greyhound endorse the 

occupant protection provisions of the bill, but Mr. David Leach, 

Greyhound CEO, stood with family members, Senators of both parties, and safety groups and stated that these improvements should 

be adopted industry wide and that Greyhound supported, ‘‘the 

strongest safety legislation,’’ not, ‘‘the weakest.’’ 

The most effective legislation to correct deadly and dangerous deficiencies is contained in MAP–21. My prepared statement goes 

into great detail about this and compares the provisions with H.R. 

7. 

Unfortunately, Motorcoach Safety Provisions in H.R. 7 are not as 

comprehensive or specific and include unnecessary delays and protracted deadlines. On the other hand, the Greyhound Compromise 

requires timely action on key NTSB recommendations that will ensure passengers are protected with seatbelts, anti-ejection window 

glazing, roof crush protection, tire pressure monitoring systems, 

and roll-over protection—prevention technology. And I would say 

that roll over is the source of most severe cause of injury in over 

50 percent of these crashes. 

These safety technologies are affordable costs, and as I mentioned a dime per passenger trip and are already available as optional equipment on—by motorcoach manufacturers who do not oppose the Senate bill. There is no excuse for delaying any longer. We 

strongly urge the subcommittee to support the provisions of MAP– 

21. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:] 

74 


77607.044
75 


77607.045
76 


77607.046
77 


77607.047
78 


77607.048
79 


77607.049
80 


77607.050
81 


77607.051
82 


77607.052
83 


77607.053
84 


77607.054
85 


77607.055
86 


77607.056
87 


77607.057
88 


77607.058
89 


77607.059
90 


77607.060
91 


77607.061
92 


77607.062
93 


77607.063
94 


77607.064
95 


77607.065
96 


77607.066
97 


77607.067
98 


77607.068
99 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Ms. Claybrook. 

Ms. Gadhia. 

STATEMENT OF AMI V. GADHIA 

Ms. GADHIA. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Slide the microphone a little closer. 

Ms. GADHIA. Is that better? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is perfect. 

Ms. GADHIA. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn and Ranking 

Member Butterfield. My name is Ami Gadhia, and I am Senior Policy Counsel with Consumers Union, the public policy and advocacy 

arm of Consumer Reports. 

CU believes that the vehicle safety provisions passed by the Senate as a part of its Surface Transportation Bill will provide NHTSA 

with critical new authorities to help promote consumer vehicle 

safety. 

However, CU also believes that there are ways in which the Senate language can be further strengthened to address certain critical 

consumer safety issues and urges the House to include these additional provisions in its own bill. 

CU supports the requirement that NHTSA issue rules regarding 

vehicle stopping distance, brake override, and pedal placement. We 

have recommended the issuance of safety standards in these areas 

for several years and believe that their adoption will provide important safety features in passenger vehicles. 

We are also glad to see a proposal to establish a council for vehicle electronics, vehicle software, and emerging technologies, and a 

proposal to require NHTSA to set a performance standard for electronic systems in cars. 

We support the provisions for grants to States that enact and enforce anti-distracted driving laws and graduated driver’s licensing 

laws for teenagers. We also strongly support a requirement that 

NHTSA prioritize the setting of new safety standards for car seats 

for children as well as prioritize performing new research into 

emerging child safety concerns. 

CU applauds provisions making improvements to NHTSA’s public database of consumer safety reports. This database is a vital 

tool for NHTSA, automakers, safety advocates, and the public to 

identify emerging hazard trends. This tool, in turn, can help save 

lives. 

However, this database has not been as consumer friendly or as 

organized as it could be. The Senate passed a bill that changes this 

by requiring NHTSA to improve the database’s organization, 

functionality, and searchability. Consumers will also benefit if 

NHTSA makes vehicle recall information available on the web and 

if the agency makes this recall information searchable by make, 

model, and VIN. All of these changes will make a big difference for 

consumers seeking information about the safety of the cars they 

own or plan to purchase. 

Recall efficacy is another important issue. According to NHTSA, 

the average consumer response rate to vehicle recalls is roughly 70 

percent. Giving NHTSA the authority to require manufacturers to 

issue additional recall notices and to take additional steps to locate 

and notify each individual registered as the owner or leasee can 

100 

also help improve recall completion rates, thereby helping to make 

our roads safer. 

We also support making data gathered under NHTSA’s Early 

Warning Reporting System available to the public. We have previously recommended that consumer complaint numbers submitted 

by manufacturers to NHTSA under the EWR System should be 

made by public by NHTSA and should be easily searchable. 

Requiring EDRs or Event Data Recorders in all new cars from 

model year 2015, onwards with appropriate privacy controls and 

disclosures will mean that more of these data can help police and 

accident investigators reconstruct what happened in a crash. 

Finally, in the event that a manufacturer violates the law, raising the maximum civil penalty that NHTSA could levy for violations from $17 million to $250 million will help act as a deterrent 

against future violations that imperil public safety. It should be 

noted that the $250 million figure is the outermost limit of what 

NHTSA could possibly fine a company for a series of violations. 

As noted, we are happy to see several of our recommendations 

in the Senate-passed bill, but there are additional elements that 

are missing that we urge the committee to take up as it considers 

Surface Transportation legislation. 

First, gear shifters should be designed so that a driver can quickly identify the neutral position and easily shift gears to regain control of a car in a panic situation. There are also additional improvements needed in the child safety seat standards that NHTSA administers. CU recommends that the agency revise FMVSS 225 to 

allow anchors and tethers to be used with car seats for children to 

at least 65 pounds or greater. 

We next urge the House to include in its legislation language requiring rental car companies to make any recall-related repairs before they rent cars to consumers. Regarding distracted driving, 

NHTSA is currently in the process of finalizing its in-car distraction guidelines for manufacturer. In order to ensure the widest application of these guidelines, CU recommends that the guidelines 

be incorporated into NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program or 

NCAP. 

CU would also like to see vehicle roof strength and seat back 

strength requirements improved. Specifically, we would like to see 

a dynamic rollover test, not simply a static roof crush test as is currently the case. 

As the House moves forward with its consideration of its own 

bill, the CU urges you to include those provisions described in your 

legislation as well as the additional provisions we have described. 

We thank the committee for the opportunity to present our recommendations and look forward to assisting you as you move forward. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gadhia follows:] 

101 


77607.069
102 


77607.070
103 


77607.071
104 


77607.072
105 


77607.073
106 


77607.074
107 


77607.075
108 


77607.076
109 


77607.077
110 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for your testimony. 

At this time we are going to recess to go vote. We have got just 

under 2 minutes left on the clock to cast our vote. What we are 

going to try to do is cast the vote and come back during the recommittal. We will see how that works when we get to the floor. We 

have got three amendment votes and then a recommittal. 

So our goal is to not hold you needlessly. We do have some questions we would like to get on the record, but at this time we will 

consider the committee in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will call us back into order, in session. Thank 

you all for bearing with us and recognize myself for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. Bainwol and Mr. Stanton, I would like to begin with you. We 

have talked about the safety mandates in the Senate bill. Mr. 

Strickland has talked about some of the safety guidelines. I know 

many of those came from the industry, but I want to look specifically at the safety mandates that are in the Senate version of the 

bill right now, and what I would like to know going back to your 

comment, Mr. Bainwol, about affordability of safe cars, what would 

these mandates, what would they add to the sticker price of a new 

car, and then how do the new regulatory mandates affect your efforts and your abilities to develop and implement your own safety 

technologies that you bring forward through R&D, and then the 

third component of this since we are looking at the average age of 

a car on the road right now being 10–1/2 years, do you have concerns regarding the increasing costs and affordability of cars and 

whether that puts the price of safety beyond the means of many 

Americans in this economy? 

So, Mr. Bainwol and then Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. BAINWOL. There is a lot to that, but let me try to unpack it 

a bit. I do think the critical thing here is making sure that we can 

trigger the replacement process. Mandates that build the cost of a 

vehicle that make it unaffordable means that we are not realizing 

the objective, which is to save lives, and so I think everybody at 

the table has a common objective, and that is how do you maximize 

the savings of live, and for us that means a prudent, data-driven 

process where you make priorities and you determine where you 

get the most bang for the buck, and you do the research to make 

sure that there is no unintended consequences and that it is efficacious and that there will be a consumer demand for it. 

What that really means in short is that from a practical perspective we think NHTSA’s plan is a pretty good one, and we think 

that the notion of adding political regulatory earmarks, which is 

basically what the Senate has done, is not a great idea because it 

interferes with the ability to execute the NHTSA plan. It does raise 

costs. We can’t really project what the cost would be because we 

don’t know how they would define the mandate, but it does raise 

cost. It does confuse the mission, and I don’t think it leads to an 

outcome that we all prefer, which is safer cars. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. STANTON. Yes. I would put it in a little bit bigger context as 

you know that we have, are on the chart to hit 54–1/2 miles per 

gallon by 2025, and the cost increase that the government estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
111 

mated just to go to the 2016, would be about $1,000 per car and 

from 2017, to 2025, about another $2,000, and I just testified before 

the National Academy of Sciences, and they are looking at standards from 2010, to 2030, and where we are going, and I think we 

are working with the administration on fuel cell vehicles and EVs 

and California wants 15.4 percent of their vehicles to be electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles by 2025. 

So there are costs that are involved in that, and then when you 

add the safety requirements, and our organization and all of our 

members are really about enhancing vehicle safety. We have been 

working with NHTSA on all of the rulemakings. We, as my testimony I hope conveyed, is that we don’t want fruitless requirements 

or redundant requirements, but the affordability at the end of the 

day. We are doing OK. I mean, 2009 was a really bad year, ’10 was 

a little bit better, ’11 and ’12, we are looking now maybe at 13– 

1/2 million units, and that is good for the industry, but we need 

to keep the affordability of the vehicles, the affordability has to be 

there, or we will not accomplish our fuel efficiency goals or our 

safety goals. 

So it is a big concern, and as we go through it, we work with our 

member companies and we work with the regulators to make sure 

that we get the best value for the buck. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, and I only have 27 seconds left, 

but at this time, Mr. Butterfield, I am going to yield to you for 

questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Motorcoach ridership is up, and yet motorcoaches are not being 

held to the same safety standards as passenger vehicles. H.R. 7 

does not require bus manufacturers to comply with key safety requirements for 6 years after enactment, and operators are not required to fully adopt the new buses for 18 years. 

Ms. Claybrook, is that correct or incorrect? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is correct. The 18-year provision is for 

retroactivity. The 6 years is for the new buses. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. And what is your take on all of this? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, my take is that the National Transportation Safety Board for 40 years has been telling both the Department of Transportation and the bus industry to improve their bus 

safety, and very, very little has ever happened. And I don’t think 

it is going to happen unless you have these mandates. 

The compromise that the consumer groups and the families of 

the victims had with the—in the Senate bill were very reasonable. 

It was signed off on by the Greyhound Corporation, the CEO personally, said it was totally feasible, and we think that that, the 

Senate bill then with that compromise in it is perfect and that anything less than that is unfortunate. 

And as I mentioned, the cost of the Senate bill is 10 cents per 

passenger. This is an industry that has huge numbers of passenger 

riders every year. These buses last for 20 years. If you fix them up, 

they are going to provide safety again and again and again, day 

after day after day. And so it is well worth the investment. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. All right. Number two. A number 

of provisions in the Senate bill were based on technical assistance 

provide by NHTSA. Administrator Strickland’s testimony menVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:12 Aug 01, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-00~1\112-13~4\112-13~1 WAYNE
112 

tioned one such provision, giving NHTSA new authority to address 

hazards caused by vehicles or equipment imported by an entity 

other than the original manufacturer. 

Ms. Gadhia, and I may be mispronouncing that, do you believe 

that it is important for NHTSA to be able to work with Homeland 

Security to take action against imported vehicles or vehicle equipment that may be hazardous? What types of limitations are we currently facing in ensuring that imported goods do not violate consumer protection laws? 

Ms. GADHIA. Yes. I think that is an important addition in the 

Senate legislation. Obviously you have got concerns, and consumers 

would like to know that the vehicles that they are driving, whether 

domestically produced or foreign imports, are meeting all the safety 

requirements. And what I do understand also is that in the Senate 

legislation that particular section regarding import safety makes 

the provision that if a car due to be imported is subject to a recall 

and that recall repair is made, that there is no longer any kind of 

holdup. So we think that is an appropriate consumer protection. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. I am going to yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Butterfield yields back. 

Ms. Schakowsky for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. Mr. Bainwol, I wanted to ask you 

a question, but let me just first say that I think, I hope all of us 

are happy that the automobile industry is doing well. I was one of 

those proud to support the support for the industry and glad to see 

the industry back on its feet big time. 

At the end of your testimony you said safer but you really meant 

affordable, had to correct yourself. I think consumers don’t want to 

have to choose particularly, but you said in your testimony, I want 

to quote, ‘‘As a Nation we can better utilize the full benefits of vehicle safety technologies when we get vehicle occupants properly restrained and drunk drivers off the road while safety belt usage is 

increasing. Only half the vehicle occupants killed in crashes, over 

half of vehicle occupants killed in crashes are not restrained by 

safety belts or child safety seats.’’ 

And then on page seven of your testimony you state that Section 

31503 of the Senate bill, which would require a rear seatbelt reminder system, should be deleted. 

You know, I find that really contradictory and hypocritical frankly. Would you respond? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Sure. I would be delighted to. It is true, and you 

can slice the data a number of different ways, but it definitely true 

that of the 32, 33,000 fatalities that a huge proportion of those 

come from either drunk driving or folks who are not seat belted or 

some combination, and so to pin the exact number is a little tough 

because you have both causalities. 

So point one is dealing with both of those behavioral questions 

is probably the best thing we can possibly do to improve—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. I have very limited time. OK. So we agree 

on that. 

Mr. BAINWOL. I am trying to be responsive. So the best thing we 

can do is deal with these behavioral problems. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. BAINWOL. The seatbelt issue to which you refer—— 

113 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BAINWOL [continuing]. Is an element of that issue, but it is 

really not the same issue. We are talking about latches, I believe, 

that—are you talking about the latches? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No. I am talking about—— 

Mr. BAINWOL. Rear seatbelt warnings. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. 

Mr. BAINWOL. OK. As I understand the rear seatbelt warnings 

are now part of NHTSA’s rulemaking plan, one. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, Ms. Claybrook, would you comment on 

that? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. There is no reason if you have belt reminders 

in the front seat not to have them in the backseat. In the backseat 

you have children primarily who are riding. I don’t understand why 

the industry is behaving this way. 

In fact—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No, no. You are done. I am asking Ms. 

Claybrook now. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. In fact, the belt reminders have really worked, 

and we should protect the most precious cargo in the vehicle, and 

that is our children. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask you another questions. Isn’t it true 

that auto industry initially resisted seatbelts altogether, airbags, 

and now use, now market the safety vehicles that they produce as 

something good? So is a market-driven approach to safety the way 

to go? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. No. Well, market only, you mean? No. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. You have to require them because the industry 

has been a reluctant partner in safety forever, and when you have 

the clarity of a statutory requirement, it is wonderful for the industry in many ways. They stop fussing and fuming, and they get 

around to doing the engineering. And that is what we really want 

is for them to have a clear mandate that gives them a deadline and 

then they know they have to do it, and they stop trying to use their 

lawyer, and they start using their engineers. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right. Let me get to the latch, and I wanted to ask Ms. Gadhia and good luck on your new addition to the 

family. 

Ms. GADHIA. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The safety of child-restraint systems has come 

a long way. There is no question, and many parents now use the 

latch system to install car seats, but the latch system approved 

weight limits are lower than the weight limit on many car seats 

that are being installed using latch. The Senate bill has provisions 

suggesting the use of larger car seats and older and heavier children using them. 

I wonder if you could speak on the importance of these efforts, 

and do you think that most parents know that their car seats may 

be, may need to be reinstalled as their child ages? 

Ms. GADHIA. The provisions in the Senate bill are absolutely critical, and we appreciate that. We appreciate the Senate provisions 

and what they do require NHTSA to do with regards to child safety 

seats. 

114 

What is also critical is making sure that NHTSA is exploring a 

dynamic side impact test with regards to child safety seats, but I 

think you are absolutely right, that consumers are not aware with 

the compatibility of those latch anchors, those latch tethers which 

are so important for safety with car seats, and that is something 

that is partially addressed by the Senate bill, but we would also 

like to see NHTSA further address. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I want to thank our witnesses for being with 

us today and to remind our members that there are 10 days to submit questions. I know many of us have additional questions. I know 

that some of you have additional comments that you would like to 

submit for the record, so we will have that 10 days, but in order 

to keep from holding you here through a new series of votes, we 

are going to complete our work. 

And I am going to ask unanimous consent to include into the 

hearing record the statement of Representative Bill Shuster and 

statements from the following organizations, all of which we have 

shared in advance with the minority: The Rubber Manufacturers 

Association, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, 

Dorel Juvenile Group, Anchor Trailways and Tours, National Automobile Dealers’ Association, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association. 

So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

115 


77607.078
116 


77607.079
117 


77607.080
118 


77607.081
119 


77607.082
120 


77607.083
121 


77607.084
122 


77607.085
123 


77607.086
124 


77607.087
125 


77607.088
126 


77607.089
127 


77607.090
128 


77607.091
129 


77607.092
130 


77607.093
131 


77607.094
132 


77607.095
133 


77607.096
134 


77607.097
135 


77607.098
136 


77607.099
137 


77607.100
138 


77607.101
139 


77607.102
140 


77607.103
141 


77607.104
142 


77607.105
143 


77607.106
144 


77607.107
145 


77607.108
146 


77607.109
147 


77607.110
148 


77607.111
149 


77607.112
150 


77607.113
151 


77607.114
152 


77607.115
153 


77607.116
154 


77607.117
155 


77607.118
156 


77607.119
157 


77607.120
158 


77607.121
159 


77607.122
160 


77607.123
161 


77607.124
162 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We, again, thank you. We look forward to continuing a hearing next week. We are going to be looking at some 

of the privacy issues that are in front of us. 

Your patience has been appreciated, and we appreciate the information you brought to us. 

Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

163 


77607.125
164 


77607.126
165 


77607.127
166 


77607.128
167 


77607.129
168 


77607.130
169 


77607.131
170 


77607.132
171 


77607.133
172 


77607.134
173 


77607.135
174 


77607.136
175 


77607.137
176 


77607.138
177 


77607.139
178 


77607.140
179 


77607.141
180 


77607.142
181 


77607.143
182 


77607.144
183 


77607.145
184 


77607.146
185 


77607.147
186 


77607.148
187 


77607.149
188 


77607.150
189 


77607.151
190 


77607.152
191 


77607.153
192 


77607.154
193 


77607.155
194 


77607.156
195 


77607.157
196 


77607.158
197 


77607.159
198 


77607.160
199 


77607.161
200 


77607.162
201 


77607.163
202 


77607.164
203 


77607.165
204 


77607.166
205 


77607.167
206 


77607.168
207 


77607.169
208 


77607.170
209 


77607.171
210 


77607.172
211 


77607.173
212 


77607.174
213 


77607.175
214 


77607.176
215 


77607.177
216 


77607.178
217 


77607.179
218 


77607.180
219 


77607.181
220 


77607.182
221 


77607.183
222 


77607.184
223 


77607.185
224 


77607.186
225 


77607.187
226 


77607.188
227 


77607.189
228 

Æ 


77607.190