[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-98
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-061 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Ranking Member
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
FRED UPTON, Michigan TONY CARDENAS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois Massachusetts
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Witnesses
Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 55
Submitted Material
Statement of the Center for Auto Safety.......................... 51
OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Burgess, Upton,
Lance, Guthrie, McKinley, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters,
Costello, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Cardenas, Dingell,
Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director;
Daniel Butler, Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative
Clerk, Energy/Environment; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel,
DCCP; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali
Fulling, Legislative Clerk, O&I, DCCP; Elena Hernandez, Press
Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, DCCP; Bijan
Koohmaraie, Counsel, DCCP; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator;
Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, DCCP; Greg Zerzan, Counsel,
DCCP; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce
and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Minority
Counsel; Zach Kahan, Minority Outreach and Member Services
Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority
Policy Analyst; and Michelle Rusk, Minority FTC Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Good morning, I would like to call the
Subcommittee on Digital Commence and Consumer Protection to
order. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
I would like to begin by recognizing someone who is sadly
not with us today. Last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee
lost our staff director, Ray Baum, after a year's long battle
with cancer. Ray was a dedicated public servant both here in
Washington and at home in Oregon, an exemplary leader on the
committee and a good friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with
his family during this difficult time.
In that vein, again, let me thank you for being here today.
Welcome, again, to the subcommittee's hearing today on
oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA. The Deputy Administrator, Heidi King, is
here to update the committee on many important safety issues at
NHTSA.
Oversight of agencies within the committee's jurisdiction
is critical, we thank you, again, Ms. King, for appearing
before us to discuss NHTSA's priorities and answer questions.
NHTSA was established by Congress in 1970 to oversee motor
vehicle safety, and it is tasked with reducing traffic-related
deaths incurred, injuries, and economic losses. NHTSA
accomplishes its vehicle safety mission through three major
programs: setting motor vehicle safety standards, enforcement
of investigating motor vehicle defects in administrating its
recall program, and research data collection and data analysis.
Today, the mission remains to keep drivers safe. All the tools
at NHTSA's disposal are important, including recent updates to
IT infrastructure within the Office of Defect Investigations.
In recent years, our country has seen an unacceptable rate
in traffic fatalities. In 2015, traffic deaths rose by 7.7
percent, and in 2016, we lost more than 37,000 individuals on
our roadways. This 2-year increase is the most dramatic
escalation in traffic fatalities in more than 50 years.
According to NHTSA, the three main causes of accidents are,
one, people not wearing their seat belts; two, impaired
driving, either drunk or drugged driving; and, three, driver
error. Ninety-four percent of all accidents are due to human
error. We need to continue to work to find real-world solutions
that reduce risk and save lives.
Technology plays an important role in improving motor
vehicle safety, and we are seeing more and more advanced safety
features in cars on the road today. Over a year ago, this
subcommittee began a review of these new automated features and
then expanded to examining the path to self-driving vehicle
technology here in the United States. After three hearings, two
markups, and hundreds of meetings, we passed the SELF DRIVE Act
54 to zero out of this committee, and the House voice voted to
approve the bill last September. We will continue to work to
get the bill to the President's desk. We know this technology
will not wait for the government to catch up. As other
countries work to surpass the U.S. in the race for self-driving
technology, we are going to make sure that this incredible
innovation, and the high-quality jobs it brings, stays rate
here at home.
With that background, it is encouraging to see the
continued focus at NHTSA on self-driving technology and the
potential benefits to improve safety. When this process began,
the first Federal automated vehicle policy outlined one of the
basic principles that laid the foundation for the SELF DRIVE
Act. NHTSA is the national safety regulator for the design,
construction, and performance of motor vehicles. This is true
today and should remain true as we transition to a fleet that
includes self-driving cars.
Turning to driver impairment, I applaud the agency's recent
announcement of an initiative to combat drugged driving.
According to recent reports, drivers killed in a car crash in
which drugs were detected surpassed those killed in crashes
where only alcohol was involved. In 2015, 43 percent of fatal
crashes involved drugs, compared to 37 percent involved
alcohol.
The opioid crisis is having a fatal impact in my district
and in every state across the country. In 2016 alone, 4,050
people lost their lives in Ohio due to unintentional drug
overdoses. I have been active in this committee and in my
district working on this epidemic. The opioid crisis in America
is far reaching and devastating to families, communities.
Combating the epidemic is an all-hands-on-deck effort, and part
of it includes examining drugged driving initiatives, like
improving roadside detection supporting law enforcement. We
stand ready to help our communities address all aspects of the
opioid crisis and save lives. We are also continuing to deal
with the Takata recall, thus the scope and complexity of this
recall has resulted in recall completion rates lower in a pace
slower than has been frustrating both as a lawmaker and as a
consumer.
With recalls scheduled in 2020, I look forward to an update
on the status of this recall and any lessons learned by NHTSA
that can be used in future recalls. I encourage consumers to
visit safercar.gov to check if their car is subject to a
recall.
Deputy Administrator King, thank you again for being with
us today, and I look forward to working with you on these many
important issues.
And, with that, I would like to call on the gentlelady from
Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for her
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good morning. I would like to begin by recognizing a major
loss to the Energy and Commerce Committee with the passing of
Ray Baum late last week. Ray was a dedicated public servant
both here in DC and at home in Oregon. My thoughts and prayers
are with his family during this difficult time. Mr. Chairman,
as you said, we will honor his legacy by continuing the work of
the committee following his example: with graciousness and
honor.
Welcome to the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Subcommittee's hearing ``Oversight of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).'' The Deputy
Administrator, Heidi King, is here to update the committee on
many important safety issues at NHTSA. Oversight of agencies
within the committee's jurisdiction is critical. Thank you, Ms.
King, for appearing today to discuss NHTSA's priorities and
answer questions.
NHTSA was established by Congress in 1970 to oversee motor
vehicle safety, and is tasked with reducing traffic-related
deaths, injuries and economic losses. NHTSA accomplishes its
vehicle safety mission through three major programs:
Setting motor vehicle safety standards or FMVSS;
Enforcement by investigating motor vehicle defects
and administering its recall program; and
Research, data collection, and data analysis.
Today, this mission to keep drivers safe is as important as
it has ever been. All of the tools at NHTSA's disposal are
important, including recent updates to IT infrastructure within
the Office of Defect Investigations. In recent years, our
country has seen an unacceptable rise in traffic fatalities. In
2015, traffic deaths rose by 7.7 percent and in 2016, we lost
more than 37,000 individuals on our roadways--a 5.6 percent
increase. This 2-year increase is the most dramatic escalation
in traffic fatalities in more than 50 years.
According to NHTSA, the three main causes of accidents are:
(1) people not wearing their seatbelts;
(2) impaired driving (drunk or drugged driving); and
(3) driver error. 94% of all accidents are due to human
error.
We need to continue to work together to find real-world
solutions that reduce these risks and help save lives.
Technology plays an important role in improving motor
vehicle safety, and we are seeing more and more advanced safety
features in cars on the road today. Over a year ago, this
subcommittee began a review of these new automated features and
then expanded to examining the path to self-driving vehicle
technology here in the U.S. After three hearings, two markups,
and hundreds of meetings, we passed the SELF DRIVE Act 54-0 out
of this Committee and the House voice voted to approve the bill
last September.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my
colleagues on the subcommittee for their hard work in
developing bills that were included in the final legislation.
We will continue to work to get the bill to the President's
desk this year because we know this technology will not wait
for the government to catch up. As other countries work to
surpass the U.S. in the race for self-driving technology, we
want to make sure this incredible innovation, and the high-
quality jobs it brings, stay right here at home.
With that background, it is encouraging to see the
continued focus at NHTSA on self-driving technology and the
potential benefits to improve safety. When this process began,
the first Federal Automated Vehicle Policy outlined one of the
basic principles that laid the foundation for the SELF DRIVE
Act:
NHTSA is the national safety regulator for the
design, construction, and performance of motor vehicles.
This is true today and should remain true as we transition
to a fleet that includes self-driving cars.
Turning to driver impairment: I applaud the agency's recent
announcement of an initiative to combat drugged-driving.
According to recent reports, drivers killed in a car crash in
which drugs were detected has now surpassed those killed in
crashes where only alcohol was involved. In 2015, 43 percent of
fatal crashes involved drugs compared to 37 percent that
involved alcohol. The opioid crisis is having a fatal impact in
my district and every state across the country. In 2016 alone,
4,050 Ohio residents died of unintentional drug overdoses. In
October 2017, I held a forum in Defiance to bring people
together from my district as wellas representatives from DEA
and HHS to discuss steps that can be taken to address this
tragic epidemic.
The opioid crisis in America is far-reaching, and
devastating to families and communities. Combating the epidemic
is an all-hands-on-deck effort, and part of it includes
examining drugged driving initiatives, like improving roadside
detection and supporting local law enforcement. We stand ready
to help our communities address all aspects of the opioid
crisis and save lives.
One final ongoing issue that this subcommittee will be
dealing with for years to come: the Takata recall. The scope
and complexity of this recall has resulted in recall completion
rates lower and at a pace slower that have been frustrating
both as a lawmaker and as a consumer. With recalls scheduled
into 2020, I look forward to an update on the status of this
recall and any lessons learned by NHTSA that can be used in
future recalls. I encourage consumers to visit safercar.gov to
check if their car is subject to recall.
Deputy Administrator King, thank you for being here today
and I look forward to working with you on these and many other
important issues.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first say on behalf of the Democrats that we also
mourn the loss of Ray, express gratitude to him for his great
service to our committee and our country, and send our
condolences to his loved ones.
Today, we ha ve our first oversight hearing for NHTSA, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under the Trump
administration. NHTSA continues to be without a Senate-
confirmed Administrator. In fact, the President has not even
announced a nominee. Still, I am very pleased to welcome Deputy
Administrator Heidi King and thank her for the opportunity she
gave me to meet with her last November, and I look forward to
continuing our conversation on innovation and safety.
NHTSA faces major challenges. For the past 2 years, traffic
fatalities have increased, reversing years of progress. At the
same time, the agency's resources are stretched thinner than
ever, even as the staff is called upon to address today's
safety challenges while preparing for the self-driving cars of
tomorrow: more responsibility, less resources.
The SELF DRIVE Act, which passed the House last year with
bipartisan support, requires NHTSA to create and carry out a
plan for new and updated safety standards. Fulfilling that
mandate requires staff with the experience and capacity to
ensure safe development of new technologies.
Passage of AV legislation is just the first step. The long-
term success of autonomous vehicles will be shaped by NHTSA.
But NHTSA's work on autonomous vehicles cannot come at the
expense of conventional vehicles. Consumers have been
overwhelmed the last couple of years with recall announcements
from Takata airbags to GM ignition switches. Recall
effectiveness remains too low. We made progress in the FAST Act
by restricting rental cars under open recalls. Unfortunately,
auto dealers can still sell used cars under open recall.
Some auto dealers are even taking backward steps. In
December 2016, AutoNation ended its pledge to not sell vehicles
under open recall. AutoNation's CEO, Mike Jackson, explained:
With the Trump administration, there is no way that that issue
is going to be addressed from a regulatory point of view.'' So
far, he has been proven right.
I have introduced the Used Car Safety Recall Repair Act to
fix this problem. I have also pushed for imminent hazard
authority and stronger penalties for violating safety
standards. I would welcome the administration's support for
these efforts.
As we push for further safety improvements, many
rulemakings, including rulemakings directed by Congress, remain
pending with no obvious progress over the last year. I will be
seeking status updates on several of those rulemakings during
my questions. I am worried about these delays because I know
all too well how long it can take to get legislation put into
effect. It has been a 10-year battle to get my legislation to
prevent child backover deaths to be implemented. Finally, in
2018, backup cameras will be standard in all new passenger
vehicles and lives will be saved.
I wonder what other safety improvements are stalled at
NHTSA and will continue to be stalled by the administration's
anticonsumer efforts to minimize new safety protections and how
many lives will be lost in the meantime.
I am also concerned about this administration's rollback of
energy efficiency standards adopted during the Obama
administration. NHTSA is currently evaluating or I should say
reevaluating the corporate average fuel economy standards for
model years. I guess I am not out of time. It is no mystery why
CAFE standards are being reviewed. This administration has
bowed to industry pressure to lower them. I have also seen
reports that changes to the standards could extend to model
year 2021 and 2026. Maybe we will get some clarity on that
today. Otherwise, we will see what happens when the new
proposal comes out on March 30.
Strong fuel economy standards drive innovation, as we have
seen what the tremendous gains in fuel efficiency since the
CAFE program began. I hate to see us reverse that. So, Ms.
King, I want to thank you for being here today. I look forward
to working with you on all of these issues as long as you are
in that role. I hope you share my sense of urgency in improving
the safety and efficiency of America's vehicles.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I join my colleagues on this committee in honoring and
remembering Ray Baum, my dear friend and an incredible public
servant and family man. We all miss him, his humor, his great
commitment to public service, his intellect. And to quote Ray:
``It's good to have you out.'' That was one of his phrases he
would greet us with every day. And ``The fun never stops.'' And
I think he would want us to keep that going. So I appreciate
the words of my colleagues.
This morning, we begin a series of oversight and budget-
related hearings across the jurisdiction of the Energy and
Commerce Committee. It is essential that this side of the
government, the legislative branch, and the American public
knows what is going on in the Federal agencies. And so we
appreciate the Deputy Administrator for being here. You are
first up in this multiweek effort now that we will have before
the committee. We are glad you are here and glad of the work
you are doing at NHTSA.
Safety on our roadways, as you have heard and you know, is
something we all care deeply about. With a record number of
traffic fatalities on the rise, increasing to more than 37,000
in 2016, it remains critical to evaluate NHTSA's efforts to
keep our Nation's roadways and vehicles safe.
With a growing number of devices and services designed to
keep Americans constantly occupied, distracted driving is a
real issue. In Oregon, there were over 4,000 distracted driving
crashes back in 2014 alone. My hunch is that has probably just
gotten worse since then. Ninety-four percent we are told of
those traffic-related crashes are due to human error. We have
talked about the work that we did on a bipartisan basis with
Mr. Pallone, Ms. Schakowsky, and others. A generation from now
will look back, if our SELF DRIVE Act gets into law and
collision avoidance gets into law, and point out these figures,
and they will say: What a bunch of barbarians; you drove
yourselves in? How did you text? How did you phone call?
And so we need to move forward with our SELF DRIVE Act. We
have done it in the House. We put a lot of work into that. I
came to what I thought was really a solid piece of public
policy and passed it I think unanimously in the House. And now
we need to get it all the way down to the President's desk to
have national standards and improve our roadways and give us
safety.
There are a couple of other issues dealing with recall you
will hear about today, whether it is Takata airbags and where
we stand on that, or just the recall issues overall. I would
appreciate an update on the agency's ongoing efforts in the
recall of Takata airbags.
Next steps, lessons learned for the next stages of this
massive, unprecedented, I would argue, recall. This recall
would be ongoing through 2020 I am told. We need to make sure
that consumers have all the information they need to get their
airbags replaced as quickly and safely as possible.
Safercar.gov has a search tool you can use if your car has any
open recall. So safercar.gov.
And looking at the recall issue on a broader scale, I am
also very interested in hearing about efforts to improve the
secondary market players' ability to identify and remove
recalled parts from the supply chain. I recently met with some
folks in Oregon who are very involved in this effort. They are
very frustrated about how the current system works and believe
there must be a simpler way where you can scan the VIN number
and be told whether there are parts on this car that should not
be put into the supply chain or, if they are, taken out. So I
know you have had discussions about the ability for
stakeholders to search multiple VINs at once or batch searches.
So any updates you can provide the committee on NHTSA-led or
industry-led efforts on this front would be greatly
appreciated, because it is critical we continue to improve this
recall process at every level of the supply chain.
America's roadways are the backbone of our Nation, apart
from being a way to get from point A to B, safely traveling for
business, family vacation, whatever we do out there is critical
to all of us. And so NHTSA plays an incredibly important role
in this effort. And we look forward to working in partnership
between the Congress and the administration to move forward
with our SELF DRIVE Act and continue to improve roadway safety
for our Nation's drivers.
And so, Deputy Administrator King, thank you for being with
us today.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and confess that
there is another hearing going on I need to give an opening
statement for as well. And so I will be in and out. But thank
you for holding this hearing and kicking off this effort.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Chairman Latta. This morning we begin a series
of oversight and budget-related hearings across the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce committee. It is
essential that we in Congress, and more importantly the
American public, know what is going on at federal agencies.
Today, we will hear from Deputy Administrator King about the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
priorities and safety initiatives.
Safety on our roadways is a national imperative. With the
number of traffic fatalities on the rise--increasing to more
than 37,000 in 2016, it remains critical to evaluate NHTSA's
efforts to keep our Nation's roadways and vehicles safe. With
the growing number of devices and services designed to keep
Americans constantly occupied, distracted driving has become a
serious problem.
In my home State of Oregon, there were over 4,000
distracted driving crashes in 2014 alone. In total, ninety-four
percent of traffic-related crashes are due to human error.
We all have stories about our commutes to the office or
around our district, and what people will do while also trying
to drive. Technology, responsibly developed, has the potential
to transform the driving operation and reduce risks from
distraction and impairment.
This subcommittee worked with a wide range of stakeholders,
over many months, and ultimately the full committee reported
the bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act--54-0. The House passed the bill
a few weeks later without opposition. We did not let the chance
to save lives and support American innovation pass us by, and I
remain committed to moving this legislation to the President's
desk this year. I would like to thank Chairman Latta, Ranking
Member Schakowsky, Rep. Upton, and Rep. Dingell for their work
on this important legislation.
The SELF DRIVE Act will provide companies with greater
flexibility to test and generate data for the development of
self-driving cars and, importantly, clarifies NHTSA's role as
the national safety regulator.
Not only will these vehicles make our roadways safer, they
also have the potential to improve mobility for the elderly and
disabled and increase transportation access for rural and
traditionally underserved communities.
Turning to another issue that is impacting every district
in the country--the opioid crisis. I look forward to hearing
more about the recently announced Drugged Driving Initiative at
NHTSA. Driving under the influence of prescription opioids and
marijuana now causes more traffic fatalities than driving under
the influence of alcohol.
This is a prime example of an issue where federal
leadership is valuable to bring together stakeholders, such as
law enforcement and other community leaders, to find a way to
protect people on our roads and combat the opioid crisis.
While there are new opportunities on the agenda for NHTSA,
the agency still faces many challenges. Recall completion
rates, including the ongoing Takata recall, continue to be an
area where we encourage improvement. The complexity of the
Takata recall only seems to grow, and even this week there is
another expansion of ``do not drive'' warnings.
I would appreciate an update on the agency's ongoing
efforts in the Takata recall, next steps, and lessons learned
for the next stages of the recall. This recall will be ongoing
through 2020, and we need to make sure that consumers have all
the information they need to get their airbags replaced as
quickly and safely as possible. SaferCar.gov has a search tool
so you can see if your car has any open recalls.
Looking at the recall issue on a broader scale, I am also
interested hearing about efforts to improve secondary market
players' ability to identify and remove recalled parts from the
supply chain. There have been discussions about improving the
ability for stakeholders to search multiple VINs at once, or
batch searches. Any updates on NHTSA-lead or industry-lead
efforts on this front would be greatly appreciated. It's
critical we continue to improve the recall process.
America's roadways are the backbone of our Nation. Far from
just being a way to get from point A to point B, safely
traveling, for business, family events, vacation, or simply
running errands, is a necessity for families across the
country. We must continue working together to encourage
innovation, promote best practices, and be at the forefront of
technological advances in the auto industry. Progress is
critical to enhance vehicle and roadway safety for our Nation's
drivers. I want to thank Deputy Administrator King again for
being here today and I look forward to this important safety
discussion.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today marks the first time someone from the Trump
administration is testifying before this subcommittee. I thank
Deputy Administrator King for being here. This is important for
oversight and accountability.
It is particularly important for this authorizing committee
to hear from NHTSA, the agency responsible for automobile
safety. Last year, the House passed a bipartisan bill, written
by this committee, that would ensure that, as autonomous
vehicles are becoming more prevalent on our roads, that proper
rules are in place. And specifically the House bill requires
NHTSA to update and issue new standards to accommodate self-
driving cars. Unfortunately, that bill was passed with zero
input from the administration on how or whether it could be
implemented. And there are legitimate concerns that NHTSA is
not prepared and is not keeping up with the quickly changing
automotive industry. It is troubling that NHTSA does not have
the resources, people, or expertise it needs to fulfill its
mandate. It is also concerning that the administration clearly
does not see this agency as a priority as we have yet to hear
about a possible nomination for the role of NHTSA
Administrator.
Investigations by this committee have demonstrated how ill-
prepared NHTSA is today. During this committee's investigation
of sudden intended acceleration, we learned that NHTSA did not
have expertise in emerging technologies with little to no
electrical or software engineers on staff.
Then, during the ignition switch investigation, we found
that NHTSA did not understand the link between the power mode
status and the air bag system. What is more, at the same time
as we are working to nudge NHTSA into the 21st century, the
current administration is doubling down on a hands-off
approach. In February of last year, the President issued an
executive order requiring agencies to make recommendations to
repeal, replace, or modify regulations. Then, in March, the
President signaled that he was going to loosen fuel standards.
And just last month, the Secretary of Transportation announced
that she is working on a Federal automated vehicle policy 3.0
to ``remove regulatory barriers for autonomous vehicles.'' And
this announcement came just 4 months after Secretary Chao
released version 2.O, which already loosened agency guidance.
It is hard for me to understand how the administration is
moving forward with an effort to get rid of important safety
and environmental standards when NHTSA has not even finalized
several important standards that became law in 2012 and 2015.
And these include a rulemaking on rear seatbelt reminders and
one to improve protection of children seated in car seats
during side impacts. NHTSA should prioritize completing these
important rules that are critical to the safety of passengers.
Safety is also essential when it comes to autonomous
vehicles. It is a great time to be in the automotive industry
and to be participating in its technological evolution. The
work on self-driving cars is fascinating and promising. Some
vehicles on the road today can self-park and automatically
brake. And while it is important that we hear from NHTSA about
how it is getting the tools and skills necessary to deal with
the ever-changing landscape, I want to make sure NHTSA is doing
what it must to ensure safety now.
In 2016, more than 37,000 people were killed on U.S. roads.
That is an increase of 5.6 percent from 2015. And 2015 saw a
7.2-percent increase over 2014 numbers. And this trend is
troubling. Cars are part of our everyday lives. We depend on
them to get us where we need to go. We count on NHTSA to ensure
that they are safe and fuel-efficient. And I am pleased that
Deputy Administrator King was brought on board at NHTSA in the
fall. I urge the nomination of an Administrator so that the
agency has the full leadership needed to deal with the many
exciting but challenging tasks ahead at NHTSA.
I look forward to continuing our discussion about how NHTSA
can work harder to stay with the curve, if not ahead of it. I
have about a minute left that I would yield a minute to
Congresswoman Dingell, of course.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I am grateful to you,
Ranking Member.
Deputy Administrator King, welcome to the committee, and it
was great to see you in Detroit. I am just going to add
comments to those that have been made by all of my colleagues
about self-driving cars, which do have the promise to save
lives, decrease congestion, and improve access to mobility
services to seniors and the disabled if we get the policy
right. As everybody is saying here, we need to get it right.
But to be competitive, we have got to make sure we have a
flexible framework that is going to keep up with the changing
technology. And we have got to make sure we are staying at the
forefront of innovation technology and that we are developing
it here, not in China or India. At the same time, we need to
make sure that safety is always number one. So thank you for
being here. I look forward to working with you. We are not
going to let this be built anyplace else. We need to work with
you to make sure it is on the road and we are keeping everybody
safe. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
And again, we want to thank our witness for being with us
today and taking time to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witness will have the opportunity to give a 5-
minute opening statement followed by a round of questions from
the members. Our witness for today's hearing is Ms. Heidi King,
the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Ms. King, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Ms. King. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
Schakowsky and Members of the subcommittee. I am truly honored
to testify before you today. I am proud to have served the
members of this committee through the 112th session of
Congress, one of the highlights of my career.
Before I begin, I would like to extend my sympathies to the
committee and its members for the loss of Mr. Ray Baum. Ray was
a wonderful colleague, an extraordinary individual. We mourn
his passing and are very much--I am before you today inspired
by his humor, his resilience, and his commitment to public
service.
Today, I am excited to tell you how NHTSA is acting its
mission of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing
economic costs. As the automotive transportation landscape is
changing at a rapid pace, NHTSA is adopting and adapting our
mission of execution to assure safety while remaining in step
with these changing technologies, addressing new and emerging
risks, and encouraging industry innovation. Safety is and
safety remains the Department's top priority.
As you mentioned, 37,461 lives were lost in 2016. Combined
with an increase the prior year, these losses of life represent
the largest proportionate increase in highway fatalities in my
lifetime. The loss of life is, I believe we all agree,
unacceptable. The rise in fatalities has occurred during a time
of great change in the transportation landscape. More Americans
are choosing to bicycle, to walk, to rideshare. Both our
vehicles and our roadways, the way we interact with them are
evolving at a rapid pace.
As the average lifespan of motor vehicles increases,
Americans are keeping older cars than ever before. We know
newer cars are safer. The occupant of a newer car is much more
likely to survive a crash than the occupant of an older car.
This underscores why it is so incredibly important to ensure
that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, and fuel-
efficient vehicles.
Adapting to changes is how Americans travel. NHTSA will
continue to employ risk-management best practices across all of
our activities to identify, to assess, mitigate and
continuously improve our management of highway safety risks.
One of the emerging risks that NHTSA is fully committed to
mitigating is the problem of drug-impaired driving. We know
that many people switch between use of alcohol and illicit
drugs or consume them together. And we need to consider both
drugs and alcohol in addressing the serious problem of impaired
driving on our roadways. To that end, NHTSA has announced an
initiative to strengthen the strategies necessary to reduce
drug-impaired driving on our Nation's roads. Next month, NHTSA
will launch the national dialogue in a Call to Action, a
national summit that will bring together experts and
stakeholders to share best practices and identify near-term and
longer term strategies to save lives.
This effort is intended to build upon the previous work of
the agency and will complement the work of our state and local
partners. We are all in this together.
I have heard from members of this subcommittee that you
share our concern and you have offered support for this
initiative. I am tremendously grateful for your partnership in
this endeavor, and I look forward to working with you.
In our changing landscape, in addition to changing
preferences and an emerging drug-impaired driving risk on our
roadways, NHTSA is committed to assuring safety while also
encouraging advances in innovation and automation and in
changing automation technology. Last September, Secretary
Elaine L. Chao released A Vision for Safety 2.0, our new
voluntary guidance to encourage safe introduction of emerging
automated technologies on our roadways. A Vision for Safety
paves the way for the safe testing and deployment of automated
driving systems by encouraging best practices for
manufacturers, and also for state and local governments, and by
fostering open communication between the public, industry, and
various stakeholders.
Secretary Chao has also announced that we are at the
Department of Transportation already working on an updated
guidance, 3.0, which will be released later this year, and that
will further facilitate the adoption of automated driving
systems through a holistic and multimodal framework.
We at NHTSA are excited by the benefits that automated
technologies can bring to safety, mobility, and the efficiency
of our transportation networks. And we look forward to hearing
from the public, Members of Congress, and industry in the
coming months on how we can further reduce barriers to
accelerate the safe deployment of potentially lifesaving
technologies.
As the technologies change, consumer choices evolve and
social trends continue. You have the commitment of each member
of the NHTSA team that we will prioritize our mission in all
that we do to save lives, to prevent injuries, and to reduce
the economic cost of traffic crashes. Thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony today.
And, with that, we will move into our question-and-answer
portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning and
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. King, safety is NHTSA's number one priority. How do you
see the agency fulfilling its mission with limited resources
moving forward?
Ms. King. Very good. Thank you for asking. Our resource
question is addressed by the President's budget, which was
issued on Monday. It can be described briefly as two-thirds
grant programs and one-third divided between highway and
vehicle safety. The two-thirds grant funding request represents
our partnership with states and the fact that the highway
safety is where the rubber hits the road, which is in our
communities, in our states. The remaining one-third, divided
between highway safety, behavioral, such as drug-impaired
driving or driver awareness programs, and vehicle safety to
allow us to continue to assess the engineering design and
safety and defects components of our program.
In addition, the budget represents a shift towards
increasing focus on the emerging technologies, our engineers
are hard at work to remain in step with the changing
technologies. And we are very excited about the safety promise
they bring.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
With the self-driving vehicle technology, as you have
heard, we brought through this committee--is a priority of not
only the subcommittee but also the full committee, as you know
or as you have heard. Throughout NHTSA's guidance on self-
driving technology, NHTSA has reaffirmed its role as the
national safety regulator of vehicles. How important do you
believe it is that NHTSA remain the safety regulator for
current and future automotive technologies?
Ms. King. It is, chairman, it is the law of the land. NHTSA
is responsible for the design, construction, and performance of
all motorized vehicles in the United States.
Mr. Latta. Well, one of the things that we saw with the
legislation is--when we are talking about preemption, and as a
lot of states are out there trying to do their own thing, we
believe is very, very important and that you believe that we
have that one standard set forth. And so what would you say to
all the states out there that are maybe right now either
legislating or promulgating their own rules?
Ms. King. We have had a very rich dialogue with the states.
Each dialogue I have had with the states, we all understand
that NHTSA is responsible for vehicle design, performance, and
construction. The states will remain responsible for the safe
operation of those vehicles on the roads and the licensing of
drivers. The traditional division of responsibilities at the
state and Federal level has continued and will continue under
the existing law.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. As we have talked about today and you
have heard from individuals from this community, the opioid
crisis is just that: it is a crisis or an epidemic across our
country. We are now learning how many people are driving under
the influence of not just alcohol but drugs. You mentioned
NHTSA's drugged-driving initiative. Can you explain your goals
for this program?
Ms. King. Absolutely. The crisis is heartbreaking for those
of us who have worked in public safety and have been with
drivers at the time of an accident, some of whom are losing
their lives. It is unacceptable that we have the continued loss
of life and the proportionate increases recently.
One of the points that has struck me since coming to NHTSA
20 weeks ago is that the data is actually fairly scant. The
crisis of drug use in the U.S. has come upon us so quickly, we
do not have adequate nationally representative data sets. But
we do have data sets in certain regions. We do understand that
crisis that is upon us. The initial goal is to start using the
expertise where people are starting to win, starting to solve
the problem, and make sure, in the near term, best-practice
sharing helps us save lives today.
But that is not all the initiative is. I see the need for
us to set a path toward what we need to accomplish in the
middle and long term so that the Nation is on a path toward the
creation of the data, the processes and the systems we need to
combat drug-impaired driving as well as alcohol-impaired
driving. The dialogue begins on March 15, and I look forward to
having more information to share after hearing from our experts
and stakeholders.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
In my last 44 seconds, NHTSA issued another consumer safety
advisory and Takata recall with increased ``do not drive''
warnings for certain Ford and Mazda models. Consumers should
check the safercar.gov to see if their car is included in this
recall.
In my last 30 seconds here, could you provide us with an
update on the Takata recall and what other steps consumers
should take to protect themselves?
Ms. King. Yes, absolutely. To remind consumers that most
airbags safe lives, thousands of lives are saved each year, but
there is a set of airbags that are dangerous. And in fact, the
``do not drive'' order that was issued on Monday reflects that
there is a set of airbags that can explode and hurt people. So
we encourage people to, first of all, check the website--we
would recommend www.nhtsa.gov--entering their VIN and
understand whether their vehicle is one of the life-saving, one
of the good airbags that we all keep operating in our vehicles,
or one of the sets that needs to be replaced. I encourage
people to reach out to their dealership for a free replacement.
If subject to the ``do not drive'' order or the ``do not
drive'' recall on Monday, that they do not drive, but in fact a
tow truck will come pick up their car and fix it for them to
make it safe again.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
My time has expired. And I would like to at this time
recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of
the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
In September, the House passed, and we have been talking a
lot about it, the SELF DRIVE Act to promote the safe deployment
of self-driving cars. There was a GAO report last November that
found that the Department of Transportation is actually not
prepared to address the coming safety and infrastructure
challenges from self-driving cars. You talked about something
that is happening later this year, but all we have really seen
so far are voluntary guidelines to industry. So when will NHTSA
or DOT issue a comprehensive set of priorities for rules on
autonomous vehicles and a detailed roadmap for implementation?
Let me just point out that DOT said that such a plan would
be premature. I disagree. The autonomous technology is already
here. So when are we going to see priorities for rulemaking?
Ms. King. Ranking Member Schakowsky, thank you for that
question. I would quote Congressman Pallone in saying it is
important to stay with the curve and not ahead of it. We feel
very strongly that the technologies are still emerging. I would
refer back to my experience as a research scientist at the old
Bell Labs at Telcordia Technologies. We were, in the year 2000,
thinking about the emergence of telecom, what will telephones
be like when we have 3G and 4G on our phones? We made some
predictions. Some of them were right; some of them were wrong.
That gives me a humility about our ability not only to predict
how the technology will evolve to contribute to safety but also
how consumers will adopt it.
The voluntary adaptive, flexible approach to NHTSA has
chosen and the Department of Transportation is choosing for all
modes of transportation recognizes the importance of allowing
the technology to evolve to best meet the needs of the safety
community and also of consumers. So I look forward to
continuing to work with you. It is very important to all of us
clearly that we not only maintain safe roadways, but we allow
the technology to evolve to improve the safety on our roadways.
Ms. Schakowsky. Actually, the quote was: I look forward to
continuing our discussion about how NHTSA can work hard to stay
with the curve, if not ahead of it.
So things are happening. I want to be sure that we are not
only looking forward. It sounds like you are saying we are.
You also stated in your letter to the committee that NHTSA
will continue to actively improve and advance safety here and
now. So I have some here and now questions that look to me like
NHTSA is not actually keeping up. It is years behind on a
number of rulemaking, including some that were statutorily
mandated. MAP-21 required a rule to better protect children and
car seats during side-impact crashes. This rule is 2 years
overdue. When will NHTSA issue the final rule?
Ms. King. Ranking Member Schakowsky, we are completing
research on that rulemaking now. I realize we are not moving at
the speed that we would have liked to, but we believe that to
protect our most vulnerable citizens--I am a mother myself--
that we need to get it right rather than fast, and that did
require some research before promulgation.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, but you know, it is 2 years overdue. I
just want to make that point. We are talking about children.
Ms. King. Yes, thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. And crashes.
MAP-21 required NHTSA to write a rule on improving child-
restraint-anchorage systems by 2015. NHTSA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking in 2015, but there has been no further
action. When will NHTSA finalize this rule?
Ms. King. Once again, I actually don't know the status of
that rule. I can check and get back to you on that. I will say
that, again, the research is critical to our getting the rule
right. Oftentimes, when a rule has been proposed, we receive
new information in the public comment period that needs to be
considered.
Ms. Schakowsky. We are talking 2015.
Ms. King. I understand.
Ms. Schakowsky. The FAST Act directed a rule that would
ensure consumers are notified of recalls electronically, in
addition to by email. The final rule was due in 2016, but NHTSA
has only issued an NPRM.
Ms. King. That is right.
Ms. Schakowsky. So far, also in 2016. So when will NHTSA
finalize this rule?
Ms. King. I am pleased to tell you that we do actually have
now on the website at www.nhtsa.gov the opportunity for vehicle
owners to enter a VIN and enter their email address and receive
an alert digitally to changing recall information. So there is
a functionality there. The rule has not been finalized, but I
look forward to having that available for--I look forward to
moving forward on that. But I will assure you that the website
resources are there so we are able to advise consumers of
changes in defect status on individual cars.
Ms. Schakowsky. If they act first. They have to go to the
website.
Ms. King. That is right.
Ms. Schakowsky. If I could ask one more. The FAST Act
directed NHTSA to require manufacturers to retain vehicle
safety records. That rule was due over a year ago. And when
will NHTSA finalize that?
Ms. King. If I am understanding the provision you are
referring to, I believe that that would have completed already.
It would have been wrapped up into one of two places, either in
improvements to the Artemis system, our defects program, or it
may have been in the rulemaking finalized on January 25th. But
I would be happy to get that detail from your staff, and I will
make sure that I am understanding your question fully.
Ms. Schakowsky. That would be great. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks for
yielding and for holding the hearing. Thank you for being here
today and your service and just even another additional realm
of a long career of service, so thank you.
I would like to add my voice to the many here who have
talked about Ray. And I picture Ray still just recently on the
floor, and he came up with some exciting news to tell me about
something that had a happened. He always just lit up the room.
So, to his family, our deepest sympathies.
For NHTSA, we appreciate you being here. We appreciate Ms.
King for taking the time out.
I would like to discuss my amendment to the FAST Act
requiring automobile manufacturers to provide original
equipment defective parts data to the professional automotive
recycling industry. Electronic sharing of defective part
numbers and other identifiable information and recall notices
with recyclers and others will improve safety and aid NHTSA in
achieving a 100-percent recall completion rate.
Every day, professional automotive recyclers sell over half
a million OEM parts, which provide consumers and repair shops
with safe and economical repair options. They critically need
this information to ensure that level of safety. It has been 26
months since this safety provision was enacted. Can you
describe to me the status of implementation on this?
Ms. King. Yes. We have done the work at NHTSA to assess
whether or not our existing VIN look-up tool can be converted
to a batch tool. I believe that is what you are referring to.
We have found that the system does not adapt readily. I am
happy to continue working with your staff on other ideas, but I
have heard good news that many in industry have started to
solve this problem. I have seen that there may be some other
solutions coming not from NHTSA, as we all very much appreciate
and respect the importance of the secondary market for auto
parts and am eager also to make sure that parts and vehicles
that are sold are safe and in compliance with any outstanding
recalls.
Mr. Kinzinger. Do you have a timeframe for getting this
thing fully implemented?
Ms. King. I do not have a timeframe for completing the
work. As I mentioned, we did not see that our tool would adapt
easily or adapt at all to a VIN look-up tool, a bulk VIN look-
up tool. But, again, I am under the impression--I have been
told that there are some other solutions that are near ready
that may beat NHTSA to the punch.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Well, if you could just follow up with
us, that would be great because I think that is an important
provision that, if it is effectively implemented, it is
critical to the safety of the driving public.
Additionally, several automakers in past hearings have
assured me and other members that they are going to work with
the auto recyclers to produce an effective outcome to the
situation, but I haven't heard anything of that yet. Will you
consider, if there are further issues, having NHTSA host a
high-level recall safety summit of affected stakeholders to
more effectively address any of these outstanding issues if it
is a problem?
Ms. King. I absolutely welcome feedback from all
stakeholders. This is clearly an issue I would like to hear
more about. So I would welcome conversation, yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And cybersecurity is very important to
me, and it is something we focus on a lot. As we continue to
move toward an increasingly connected world, we have to be
mindful of cybersecurity and do what we can to address these
concerns. As you may know, I introduced H.R. 3407, which was
eventually rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act. The bill requires
manufacturers to maintain a cybersecurity plan to identify an
officer as the point of contact with responsibility for
management of cybersecurity, a process for limiting access to
automated driving systems, and a process for training on
cybersecurity. Can you please walk me through NHTSA's approach
to cybersecurity and how NHTSA will consider cybersecurity in
its safety evaluations of vehicles moving forward?
Ms. King. It is my great honor to do so. Cybersecurity is
also a great interest of mine and a priority of ours at NHTSA.
In 2016, NHTSA issued a guidance for auto manufacturers with
respect to cybersecurity. And furthermore, cybersecurity is one
of the 12 safety elements that is discussed for voluntary
disclosure in A Vision for Safety 2.0, issued September of
2017. I find myself also very excited about the Auto ISAC, the
Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is a group of
not only auto manufacturers but also suppliers and
cybersecurity experts who have convened a vigorous dialogue to
understand how we can share best practices and get ahead of the
risks before they manifest themselves in our vehicles. I
attended and was honored to give a keynote at their inaugural
meeting recently and look forward to seeing that conversation
blossom.
Mr. Kinzinger. I have another question, but in the interest
of time, I won't ask it, but I will just finish by saying
cybersecurity is essential. And, obviously, as we go forward in
this amazingly interconnected world, there are some really good
opportunities and some really bad things that can frighten you.
So I appreciate you taking a serious look at that.
And I yield back the remainder.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back the remainder of his time.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to continue on Ms. Schakowsky's line of
questioning. I agree that NHTSA has been falling behind on its
safety mission. And I also ask that you keep your answers short
because I have a bunch of questions. They are not difficult,
though.
One area that has been falling behind is the national 911
office housed at NHTSA and jointly run with the NTIA. Six years
ago, Congress charged the 911 office with issuing $115 million
in grants to help deploy the next generation 911.
Unfortunately, the 911 office has yet to even finalize its
grantmaking rules. So my question is, when can we expect the
911 office to finalize the rules and actually award the grants?
Ms. King. You will see a rulemaking coming forward soon
this year. As a former 911 dispatcher, I share your sense of
urgency. It is absolutely critical. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. So, when it comes to really
deploying the next generation 911 across the country, we are
going to need more money, and that is why I have cosponsored
the Next Generation 911 Act of 2017 with Representatives Eshoo
and Torres, which paves the way for Congress to fully fund next
generation 911. If that bill becomes the law, will the 911
office be prepared to administer such a larger grant program on
schedule this time?
Ms. King. I look forward to working with you and with your
staff to better understand the bill and how we would implement
it.
Mr. Pallone. OK. So I guess you figure you haven't really
studied it much so it is hard to answer, right?
Ms. King. I am very excited in concept about improving our
911 system.
Mr. Pallone. OK. All right. NHTSA is also overdue to update
the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP. NCAP is an important
tool for incentivizing manufacturers to produce safer vehicles
and for ensuring consumers can make informed decisions when
purchasing a car. In 2015, NHTSA announced plans to update NCAP
with valuable new information on vehicles' crash avoidance
technologies and their safety in crashes involving pedestrians,
but these plans have been stalled for more than 2 years. So the
question is, when will NHTSA finalize revisions to NCAP so that
consumers have up-to-date safety information when shopping for
cars?
Ms. King. At NHTSA, we are all very pleased that the NCAP
program has offered so much both to consumers and to auto
manufacturers to identify safety features in cars. We did
propose and take comment on changes. We received comments that
raised various views that need to be taken into consideration
before moving forward, but we look forward to moving forward
soon taking into account all comments received on that
proposal.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I think NHTSA is overwhelmed, Ms.
King. And yet President Trump's budget request proposes a drop
in funding for NHTSA's operations in research from $179 million
to $152 million. Do you agree that ensuring the safety of new
and more complex technologies associated with autonomous
vehicles places increased demands on NHTSA?
Ms. King. We believe that the President's budget reflects
the resources that we need to achieve our mission with
responsible stewardship of Federal funds.
Mr. Pallone. So you don't think that the proposed cuts to
NHTSA's operations and research budget makes it more difficult
to adequately address the safety of new technologies like self-
driving cars?
Ms. King. I believe the cut you are referring to was from a
one-time bump up that we very much appreciated and that we
applied to improving one of our IT systems, the Artemis system
used in the defects organization. So we very much appreciate
those funds. That work has been launched, and we are already
benefiting from it, and we thank Congress for that support. But
we do believe that the President's budget does reflect the
resources needed for us to succeed.
Mr. Pallone. Well, all right. In fact, NHTSA's 2016 budget
identified a critical need for more staffing, noting that the
Office of Defect Investigations had fewer than 20 investigators
for 250 million vehicles equipped with increasingly complex
technologies. But your 2018 budget estimate actually proposes a
cut to ODI's funding. Now some safety hazards may decrease with
the introduction of self-driving cars, but I think the
potential for defects always exists. So I am confused by the
proposal to cut ODI's funding. How will you ensure that ODI has
the resources it needs to go forward? And what are you doing to
ensure that ODI defect investigators have the skills they need
to assess new vehicle technology?
Ms. King. Two pieces. Again, the President's budget does
reflect the resources we believe that we need. We have, as I
mentioned, system improvements we can benefit from. We are in
the process of hiring and recruiting additional engineers to
assist us in defects investigations, but we are, through our
new, more effective processes, doing the work of not only
responding to reviewing each defect report that is received at
NHTSA, but prioritizing according to risk and acting
accordingly. Our systems revised in recent years allow us to
assess the volume of complaints or notifications we receive. We
assess, we categorize by risk, and act and move forward, and
that helps us act more efficiently.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is hard not to say Heidi. Welcome back to the committee.
It was nice to see you at the Detroit auto show last month. I
don't know if you got to some of other ones or not, but we
appreciate you all in your interaction and look forward to
continuing a very constructive relationship on a whole host of
issues.
I would first note that, last month, the U.S. Justice
Department issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys handling
civil litigation matters instructing them not to use Federal
agency guidelines documents as a substitute for Federal law or
regs. This follows the approach laid out by this committee when
we passed the FAST Act back in 2015. I want to just say I
applaud the Justice Department for following that approach that
we laid out in the FAST Act, and I think that it strikes a
much-needed balance between responsible oversight as well as
unnecessary outreach.
Two quick questions for you. One is I know you are aware of
what I have introduced, the CAFE, H.R. 4011, which provides
some harmonization between the agencies. Is it--I don't know if
the administration has taken a formal stand with the SAP,
Statement of Administration Policy, on that bill. Probably not.
But given the lack of harmonization between EPA and NHTSA's
programs, it is possible for companies to be in compliance with
one program yet get hit with a large fine by the other. So our
bill attempts to correct that. Have you considered that issue
in any way administratively to resolve this before we get to
that deadline, the big one?
Ms. King. Thank you very much, Chairman Upton.
Yes, harmonization very important to all of us. We
recognize the impact not only to manufacturers who are trying
to comply with two different programs but also to the
consumers, because, as we know, those costs borne by the
manufacturers can influence what is available to and the
pricing to the consumer. NHTSA is now working with the
Environmental Protection Agency as we move forward on the CAFE
rulemakings and streamlining and making sure harmonization is
forefront is a part of that dialogue.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Where we are heading, autonomous vehicles. Again, you were
in Detroit. I participated in a roundtable discussion with
Chairman Latta there. It is the wave of the future. We are very
excited for a whole host of reasons.
One of the concerns that always pops up is the cyber
protections, and not only on the monitors of the road for
trucks and vehicles, but obviously just the applications--the
normal applications of that vehicle as they proceed. What type
of resources do you have to make sure that the proper
safeguards are in place so that things don't go really off the
road?
Ms. King. The laws and the operations and the systems we
have at NHTSA apply to all vehicles, including automated
driving systems. So, during a time of technological change, and
granted this is a technological change larger than we have seen
before, still we are responsible design, construction, and
performance in a safety context for all of the vehicles in the
United States. So our continued, whether it be reporting of
defects, whether it be our monitoring of the technological
change, our investigation of incidents related to any vehicle,
including automated driving systems, we are vigilante. We have
all of our tools in place, and we look forward to watching the
technology involve to improve safety.
Mr. Upton. Do you feel like have you good cooperation with
the industry themselves in terms of what they are proposing,
what they have, and those tools that will be installed on those
vehicles?
Ms. King. We have the voluntary safety self-assessment--
there are two posted now it is manufacturer's website. And we
are now creating a dashboard at NHTSA where we will link to the
manufacturer's voluntary safety self-assessments. We are
hearing, although other manufacturers have not yet published
theirs, they are being produced and the opportunity to learn
from one another and to have discussions around safety and
incorporating safety into their design features is very much a
part of our learning from one another so we step forward
together. It also allows that dialogue with consumers and with
state and local governments. That is absolutely critical.
Again, this is where we need to stay together at the curve, not
to get ahead of one another as the technology is still
developing.
Mr. Upton. And I would just ask you if you are aware of
some shortcomings with legislative ideas that you need to get
through, please, please work with us. This has been a good
bipartisan effort for a lot of years, and we look forward to
have that type of relationship with you and the agency.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and for
holding this important hearing.
I am going to build on what my other colleagues have been
talking about on the SELF DRIVE Act. When the committee came
together in a bipartisan manner, and I think we are all very
proud of the fact that it was unanimous, that we passed it out
of this committee, it built on many of the ideas that DOT had
laid out in the FAVP. We took the safety assessment letter and
made it mandatory. We took the Department's recommendation and
enhanced the existing exemptions process so we could build the
interim pathway to market for AVs while the new Federal motor
vehicles safety standards are being written, but they need to
be written, to make an editorial comment. And for the first
time, we required manufacturers to submit plans to NHTSA for
how they are addressing the critical issues of data security,
privacy, and cybersecurity.
But, Acting Administrator, I think what you are hearing
today is unease on behalf of everybody, because we want to stay
at the forefront of innovation and technology, and we also need
to make sure that the consumer is safe at all times. You say
you have got the tools, but we are not sure you have got the
resources for the tools so that we are moving fast enough or we
are doing what we need to do. Can you comment on the SELF DRIVE
Act and how it complements existing DOT policy, NHTSA
authority, and why you are going to assure us and, more
importantly, the consumer that they are going to be safe, and
you have got what you have got to do.
Ms. King. Yes. I am very happy to do so, very excited about
the fact that we have echoed some of the similar ideas, the
safety self-assessment, for example, being critical, not only
to allow for the disclosure of the information, because as a
good risk-management best practice, a safety self-assessment
allows each of the manufacturers, each of us, as I will say
state, local government, direct consumer, to consider safety
and get smarter. So absolutely we love that, we love the fact
that the expanded exceptions allows for the safe testing of
vehicles because we won't know if vehicles are safe unless we
have testing so there are fantastic provisions in the bill that
we look forward to continuing to work together on. We are
excited about our shared mission of assuring safety while
technology evolves--while we assure safety in step with
technology. Again, the current authorities of NHTSA with
respect to design, construction, and performance, we are on
duty. We continue to follow closely the trends and the changes,
both in the technology in what we are seeing on our roadways
and the testing environment, and we look forward to working
together.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. We all have so many questions. It
is hard here in this 5 minutes, so I am going to move to the
midterm review because I think my colleague from Michigan
raised a subject that is very important. In order for our
companies to make the investments they need to realize the
benefits on AVs, we need to make sure this industry stays
healthy, and fuel economy plays a big role in this. Strong fuel
economy standards give the industry the certainty that they
need while continuing to drive innovation that saves consumers
money at the pump. Right now, we are entering a critical phase
of the midterm review. I want to urge you, Deputy Administrator
King, Deputy Administrator King, to keep all stakeholders at
the table in a productive manner as we go through this so we
can achieve a negotiated solution that maintains one national
program that all my colleagues at this table can support.
So I am going to beg you do that. And could you comment on
that a little? And how do you feel about post-2025 standards?
Ms. King. Thank you for asking. It is very important to
me----
Mrs. Dingell. Just----
Ms. King. That we hear from and keep all stakeholders in
the dialogue. The CAFE standards, the greenhouse gas standards
at EPA, our rulemaking that we are developing jointly, it is
very important to all of us, not to only manufacturers and
consumers but to the communities in which our vehicles operate.
Very much encourage all stakeholders to have their views heard.
We look forward to an open and vigorous public comment period
in particular. As you know, the rulemaking can be very complex.
There is a great deal of analysis, engineering and economic,
that is completed for that rulemaking under the applicable
executive orders. We will continue, as NHTSA has always done,
to be committed to a transparent process where that information
is all publicly available, where anyone who would like to
contribute can review and submit their thoughts on what they
think can be done or should be done differently. It is very
important for us to get it right.
Mrs. Dingell. Any comment on post-2025 standards in the 16
seconds left?
Ms. King. Thank you.
Under the laws applicable to NHTSA, under EPCA, we are
authorized to set standards for 5 years at a time. So we must
under the law set standards for 5-year increments.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to you.
I was pleased to hear your mention of NHTSA's commitment to
mitigating drugged-impaired driving. New Jersey, which I
represent, is considering legalizing recreational marijuana.
Can you discuss any trends that you have seen among traffic
accidents in states that have legalized marijuana for
recreational use?
Ms. King. Congressman Lance, thank you for that question.
We don't have strong, robust nationwide data yet, but I can
share with you the nature of conversations I have had with some
jurisdictions. They have already seen, prior to legalization of
recreational use, increasing levels of THC in the blood of some
of their drivers. We hope to see more of that information
shared in our summit on March 15.
At NHTSA we are very concerned because some of the
evidence, which has been sent to Congress in our report to
Congress on marijuana-impaired driving in June of last year,
shows us that THC can lead to impairment, such as we see with
alcohol.
Many people, we have seen evidence, are using both THC
products or marijuana and alcohol, making it more difficult for
law enforcement to detect and discern which substance they are
using, or has been used, and how they should prosecute.
So we have many challenges ahead of us. We are very much
committed not only to short-term, but to long-term strategies
to combat the problem.
Mr. Lance. Are there tests that can determine if someone is
under the influence of marijuana, similar to how the
breathalyzer is used to detect impairment with alcohol?
Ms. King. The science is evolving. While I have seen
several tests proposed, each test has its own strengths and
weaknesses. And because the nature of the substance is
different than alcohol, I will say, we have not evolved yet to
the point where we have a certainty in the testing that we do
with alcohol. But we hope to stimulate further research as part
of our initiative to address drugged-driving.
Mr. Lance. Would NHTSA be the Federal agency that would
bring to the Nation's attention some sort of test that would be
dispositive regarding marijuana?
Ms. King. We would like to help, but of course there are
many Federal and state agencies that are involved in this
journey of discovery. We are working with toxicologists and
with other scientists at other Federal agencies, but also at
the state level. Again, some of the states have programs that
have some learnings to share with us.
So this is something where none of us are going to solve
the problem alone, we are going to work together, both in the
science community and in the public policy community.
Mr. Lance. Do the states have better tests in this regard,
several of the states?
Ms. King. Well, for roadside, I don't know that that is the
case, but it is individual laboratories where I have met with
scientists who are refining the protocols for testing blood
levels.
So science is developed not in one place, but across a
committed community. And, again, that is why we are bringing
everyone together, the experts, to share information with one
another so we can identify best practices and gaps and move
forward productively.
Mr. Lance. Would it be your agency that would take the lead
in advising Congress what the potential increase in accidents,
what that potential increase is in the various states that have
attempted to legalize recreational marijuana?
Ms. King. We have information that could partially look at
the sources of the increase in the states, but because we don't
have a nationwide system for collecting that information, it
would be conjecture at this point. But I intend to set as the
goal a nationwide collection of information that could inform
that.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to work
with you on this issue, as the Governor of New Jersey and our
state legislature together debate the legalization of
recreational the marijuana. I am opposed to such legalization
of recreational use.
Given the unprecedented scope and complexity of the Takata
recall, can you please provide the committee with some of the
lessons learned and how we might improve completion rates in
future recalls?
Ms. King. Absolutely. I would like to refer to the monitor
report that was issued--and it is posted on our website--this
past November. The independent monitor at Takata has completed,
together with NHTSA, research to understand what is working and
what is not.
Consumer response, consumer awareness and action is part of
the puzzle here. And we learned from the monitor that consumers
hear the word ``recall'' or they hear the word ``defect'' and
they don't understand the sense of urgency.
So one of the lessons learned is that not only reaching the
consumers, but using language to help them understand the
urgency of this recall is critical.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. And good luck to you in your
important responsibilities.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. King, thank you for being here.
Now, as we all know, NHTSA's fuel economy standards for
model years 2022 to 2025 were originally set in 2012. In July
2016, NHTSA and EPA released a joint technical report finding
that the standards in 2012 remain appropriate and that
compliance would be easier and less costly to achieve than
originally anticipated using a wide range of existing
technologies.
In other words, there is clear data-driven support for
maintaining existing standards and even making them more
stringent.
Now, my time is limited and I have lots of questions, so I
would appreciate it if you would stick to brief yes-or-no
responses, a la John Dingell.
Are you still planning to release a proposed rule by March
30 to finalize the 2022 through 2025 standards?
Ms. King. I would like to answer yes or no, but if I could
clarify, we will propose, not finalize, but as required by law,
we will propose, and yes, March 30.
Ms. Matsui. Yes. OK. Given the findings of the joint NHTSA
and EPA technical report, will the proposed rule set out fuel
economy standards that are at least as stringent as those
promulgated in 2012?
Ms. King. We would be able to announce that at the
proposal. At this time we are engaged in the analysis----
Ms. Matsui. So you don't know whether it is yes or no right
now.
Ms. King. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. Is that correct?
Ms. King. That is correct.
Ms. Matsui. It has been reported that the rule may also
revisit the fuel economy standard for model year 2021, but your
correspondence to the committee dated January 9 states that
your proposed standard is for light vehicles model year 2022
through 2025. Yes or no, will 2021 be included?
Ms. King. I wouldn't be able to address the rulemaking in
progress at this time, and I am afraid I haven't seen that
report.
Ms. Matsui. OK. You haven't? Oh, OK. We will send it to
you.
Are you changing the model NHTSA uses to calculate fuel
efficiency?
Ms. King. NHTSA always strives to keep its modeling updated
and current, including the inputs and the data and improving
econometric methods.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Some have claimed that adjustments to the
2022 to 2025 standards are needed because consumers are buying
larger vehicles, like SUVs and light trucks, rather than
compact cars and electric vehicles.
Again, yes-or-no responses, please. Aren't fuel economy
standards based on the size or footprint of the vehicle sold?
So a light truck does not need to achieve the same miles per
gallon as a compact car, correct?
Ms. King. The fleet-wide average does include consideration
of footprints.
Ms. Matsui. Doesn't that mean that the exact mix of trucks
and smaller cars that a manufacturer already sells is already
factored in? You said yes to that, right?
Ms. King. Manufacturers produce to meet consumer demand for
different types of vehicles for different purposes.
Ms. Matsui. Fleet-wide target. So couldn't a company meet
its fleet-wide target selling only SUVs, as long as they meet
the fuel economy standard for the SUV footprint? Yes or no?
Ms. King. I would have to think about the math, because
they need to meet a fleet-wide average.
Ms. Matsui. So you are not sure right now?
Ms. King. I would have to think about that. I have not seen
a manufacturer choose to do so.
Ms. Matsui. OK. We will check on that, too.
Let me just say this. It is very important that NHTSA
continue to engage with the autonomous vehicle innovation that
is taking place across the country. As part of NHTSA's second
AV guidance, you put forward a template for AV developers to
commit a safety self-assessment. How many safety self-
assessments has NHTSA received?
Ms. King. We don't ask manufacturers to send them to us. We
ask them to disclose them.
Ms. Matsui. So you don't have any idea of numbers at all?
Ms. King. I am aware of two, but we do not ask them to be
submitted. They are not a document submitted to NHTSA. We ask
that they be made public. And we are aware of two, which we
have linked on our website. We have created a dashboard so that
we can make it easier for----
Ms. Matsui. OK. So you are only aware of two right now?
Ms. King. That is right.
Ms. Matsui. What has NHTSA learned? Have you learned
anything from these assessments at all, from the two?
Ms. King. I have, actually. I learned that it is very
important for us all to be in dialogue on this issue. I think
each of the manufacturers is considering safety and would like
to engage with others in learning from one another. So I see
that we are in this journey together.
Ms. Matsui. Good. OK. I understand that this intention is
to increase collaboration and build the public trust for AVs,
which I strongly support. And I really believe that, as most
people here on the committee believe, which is really
important, that safety is number one.
The AV situation is getting so much, now, attention that I
think there is a sense out there that the thought is that it
may be safer than we think it is. So I really feel strongly
that we should keep emphasizing safety and any time we talk
about AVs safety is emphasized.
And I really think that if NHTSA has only received two as
far as the assessments that we are talking about, as far as
building public trust, I feel that we need to encourage more, I
think, collaboration as far as conversation. I think we need to
have more public comment on this and a sense of understanding
where this all is.
So anyway, I truly believe in this, in the midterm
evaluation also, when we are talking about autonomous vehicles,
we really need vigorous conversation and debate. So thank you
very much for being here.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Welcome back to the committee. I appreciate it very much.
Actually, Mr. Lance, my friend from New Jersey, hit a lot of
the issues that I was going to talk about, and I look forward
to the results of your roundtable and meeting on drugged
driving.
As the move to recreational use of marijuana is moving down
the road, there are a lot of serious issues, and hopefully we
can bring it to the attention of people. It is not just as
simple as a lot of people want to make it out to be. There are
a lot of issues that need to be addressed.
But I will go to another interesting topic, tire wear,
since you have already addressed that. So in the next 12 months
what progress does the Department anticipate toward
implementing the tire performance standards for fuel efficiency
and wet traction?
Ms. King. Very good. We have research underway, and so I
expect we will have something, hopefully soon, because we are
in fact reviewing some of that research now. But we have
several initiatives related to tires that are underway at
NHTSA.
Mr. Guthrie. Also, I believe you are launching into the
web-based tire recall search tool. Do you know when that should
be launched?
Ms. King. I would be happy to provide more information. I
will say, it is not an area in which I have the level of detail
I would like to provide you. I would like to make sure we get
correct information to you.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
Also, in September of last year NHTSA released new guidance
for self-driving vehicles. And a very proud and great
Kentuckian, Secretary Chao, announced the agency is working on
a version 3.0.
Can you explain the approach 3.0 will take and version 2.0
will interplay with the new guidance? So let me get back. Can
you please explain the approach 3.0 will take in version 2.0
interplay with the new guidance?
Ms. King. I am very excited to explain that.
Version 2.0 focused very much on automated driving systems
in consumer cars, in cars, whereas 3.0 will be multimodal.
I will tell you what 3.0 will not do. It will not change,
for example, the voluntary safety self-assessments that
Congresswoman Matsui was just discussing. We still expect
manufacturers to provide voluntary safety self-assessments as
described in 2.0. 3.0 will expand the discussion to include
other modes of transportation.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Can you please highlight significant dates moving forward
with respect to the Takata recall that we and our constituents
should be aware of? And when do you expect the recall to be
complete?
Ms. King. We have posted on our website at NHTSA the dates
when various ages or various risk categories of airbags will be
recalled. Right now, the date that is top of mind is now.
Because of the urgency of the recall announced on Monday with
certain 2006 Ford vehicles, I would urge every consumer to
check our website and know whether they have one of most
airbags, safe, save thousands of lives every year, or the ones
that are not safe.
I would like consumers to check, and if they are not
getting the information they need from their dealership, to
contact NHTSA immediately. The sense of urgency cannot be
overstated with respect to vehicles covered by the Do Not Drive
order. Any assistance in communicating that with your
constituents would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
I have a minute left, and maybe this is something that is
not your expertise, but I was wondering, as Mr. Lance was
talking, my understanding is that when--back to drugged-
driving--that if somebody is pulled over and they are tested
and they have the blood alcohol content that makes--they can
prosecute, that is not tested for drugs, because you don't need
both for impaired driving.
That might be something in your roundtable to discuss just
for the information, understand that if somebody is impaired,
they are impaired, but it would be nice to know how much of the
drug is in the system as well.
And I guess the question I was going to ask you, you might
not know, it might not be your expertise, but if someone is
drugged-driving, there is no alcohol, they are drugged-driving,
they are impaired, so somebody gets pulled over for crossing a
line or whatever like would typically tip off an officer, would
they fail a field sobriety test?
I know most of it is breathalyzers and blood that goes to
court, but you get there first by not being able to touch your
nose or standing on one foot or whatever, the stuff that says
you are just not capable of driving. Does somebody that is
drugged-driving on marijuana, would they fail--not opioids, but
marijuana--fail that?
Ms. King. I am drawing now upon my little known background.
I was in law enforcement 30 years ago when I was in much better
physical shape than I am today.
We have at the state level different laws in different
parts of the county, and so how the laws are categorized is
different by state. I was a law enforcement officer in
California, and I have spoken with people there and can
describe that a little bit.
Impaired driving is illegal. Impaired driving is not only a
risk to health and safety, but it is illegal in most of the
country.
When an officer identifies an impaired driver, an officer
is very experienced and well-trained in the fairly familiar
pattern of identifying an alcohol-impaired driver.
We have a number of tools to train and prepare officers to
assess for drug impairment, but there are so many different
drugs. Sometimes people are taking drugs together or with
alcohol, which then confuses the symptoms and makes it harder
for the officer to identify what exactly he is dealing with.
So, yes, I think every officer in the United States is very
likely to be trained rigorously in alcohol-impaired driving. We
have the ARIDE program and DRE programs that provide that
expertise with respect to drug-impairment identification. It is
not universal across the Nation, however.
In addition to identifying the signs and symptoms of
impairment in a driver, we also have the challenge of
prosecuting. So the officers collecting information at a
vehicle stop that he will use--he or she, in my case--that I
would use in providing information to prosecute, the critical
step in how to use that information in prosecuting when we
don't have the legal framework, maybe we don't have the field
test that we have for alcohol, those are all things that don't
exist yet in a rigorous way across the country.
But the good news, there are certain jurisdictions that
have innovated. The County of Orange in California has combined
forces, law enforcement and the district attorney's office and
the laboratories, to figure out how they can make the pieces
work together and develop best practices. They are now training
other parts of the state, and hopefully soon the country.
So we aren't as good at it as we are with alcohol, but I
know we can get better quickly, and we will learn a lot, and we
can conquer this problem together.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you. Thank you. And I am here to
support what you guys are trying to do.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has now expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and I would also
like to thank Ranking Member Schakowsky for having this
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hearing. I
appreciate this opportunity.
And thank you, Deputy Administrator King, for coming today
and answering our questions. I am happy to be addressing a
fellow Californian.
And could you help us clarify, what is the status of the
Department getting a new administrator? How is that coming
along? Can you update us?
Ms. King. The President has not yet identified a nominee,
but I look forward to learning also who my new boss will be.
Meanwhile, the Department does have a strong leader, and that
leader is here before you today, ready for your questions.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Now, your status right now is Deputy
Administrator. At one time you were acting administrator?
Ms. King. That is right. Under the Vacancies Act, the title
acting administrator is only allowed under for a certain period
of time. However, as Deputy Administrator, I do fill all of the
functions of the administrator. So I am essentially acting as
acting, although the title is not applied under the Vacancies
Act.
Mr. Cardenas. And how long has the Department been without
an administrator?
Ms. King. There has not been an administrator nominated in
the administration. I have been there since September 25. I am
halfway through my 20th week.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. So it was January 21 of 2017, or when was
it that the actual administrator position was vacant?
Ms. King. That is right, January of last year.
Mr. Cardenas. OK.
Ms. King. We have had in place acting as deputy our
executive director, who is an outstanding professional with
years of experience in transportation, and an outstanding,
strong team, and of course the leadership of the Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Cardenas. Now, having a permanent administrator would
be helpful to the Department as a whole, right? Hopefully we
will see that soon?
Ms. King. I look forward to hearing the President's
nomination. I understand that there is a great deal of work
ahead of us.
But there is a team that is strong. I believe I am a strong
leader. And I look forward to working with you.
So hopefully neither you nor the public will feel any
difference whether or not it is myself acting as administrator
or whether it is myself serving my new boss when the President
identifies the nominee and that nominee is confirmed.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes, I certainly respect that that is within
the full purview of the President. However, we do have
tremendous responsibilities--I will outline some of them right
now--within that Department.
There is no question that NHTSA has a tremendous
opportunity to shape the safe implementation of highly
autonomous vehicles in the next few years. The United States is
on the brink of an important change in how we own and interact
with vehicles.
As stewards of traffic safety, NHTSA has the responsibility
to work with Congress to make sure that these next steps are
taken in a safe manner. But any guidance or regulation we
develop of the Federal level inevitably impacts state and local
regulations, so we must make sure that what we do in
Washington, D.C., is responsive to what our officials back home
are going to have to deal with at the state and local level.
I used to be in the California State Assembly and also on
the L.A. City Council, so I have experienced firsthand what it
is like when Federal policy works well and when it does not.
During the development of the SELF DRIVE Act that was
passed in the House last year, I was particularly interested in
making sure that the legislation ensured collaboration with our
counterparts at the state and local level. The bill includes
legislation I introduced to form a Highly Automated Vehicle
Advisory Council at NHTSA with a diverse group of members,
including from state and local authorities.
The bill passed the House and we hope that the Senate will
take it up soon. But in the meantime, what is NHTSA doing to
make sure that states and localities are involved in the
development of autonomous vehicle guidance and rulemaking?
Ms. King. We are communicating a lot. I am very much
honored to work with my state partners. I agree with you, it is
critical that we work together and learn from one another and
that we not be developing things in a vacuum without
consultation.
As I had mentioned earlier, two-thirds of our budget is in
fact grant moneys with states, both because of our behavioral
programs together, but also because of the challenges that we
confront together, not only with drugged-driving, but with
emerging technologies.
We are at all levels in frequent discussion with the
states. Myself, also being someone from the field, also from
the West, which can sometimes feel distant from Washington,
D.C., I know those flights feel long some days. It is a
constant dialogue and we are very sensitive to the views of our
state partners.
Mr. Cardenas. Ms. King, what keeps you from being a
candidate to be the permanent administrator?
Ms. King. That is very kind of you to ask. The President
will make his choice, and I will defer to his choice. I look
forward to having----
Mr. Cardenas. But on a strict basis, there is no
qualification scenario that would prevent you from being
nominated, correct?
Ms. King. I do not----
Mr. Cardenas. Now, just for those watching in the White
House, I don't want them to think that you are soliciting that
position.
Mr. Latta. He is trying to be very diplomatic.
Mr. Cardenas. I know. But technically speaking, there is
nothing right now that would preclude you from being a nominee
on a technical basis, correct?
Ms. King. I certainly don't believe there is anything as
stringent as the peace officer standards and training of
jumping over a 6-foot wall, as I did many years ago in the
State of California to become a law enforcement officer.
But, honestly, Congressman Cardenas, that is not a question
that I have addressed because it is not my area of expertise
nor my responsibility. But I would be happy to get back to you
with more detail on that.
Mr. Cardenas. Nor is it a comfortable place to be. I didn't
mean to embarrass you.
Ms. King. Oh, no, no, no.
Mr. Cardenas. But I just wanted to make sure that there was
nothing that precluded that from happening.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator, for being here today.
I heard earlier you say several times that you didn't have
enough data to answer some of the questions, particularly about
drug-related accidents.
And now that it has been revealed that some, what was the
statistic, 43 percent of fatal accidents in 2015 were drug-
related, as compared to 37 percent alcohol-related, my
curiosity is how that relates--we may not have the answer here,
as you are saying.
What is happening in Europe and elsewhere around the world?
Are they finding similar to that? Because the reports I have
gotten from Europe is that alcohol is still by far the
prevalent cause of accidents, not drugs. What is bringing that
about in the United States?
Ms. King. There are two parts to that question, if I
understood your question, Congressman McKinley. One of them is
what we are seeing in Europe and one of them is what we are
seeing here? Did I understand correctly?
Mr. McKinley. Yes. What can we learn from Europe? That
Europe has been able to get control so that its drug is not the
drug-related preponderant amount of accidents caused by drugs,
but ours has been logarithmically increasing. What are they
doing right or we doing wrong?
Ms. King. There are many dimensions to that. It is, I will
say, not an area of formal publication at NHTSA, but I can
speak to my own experience and knowledge, which is that, first
of all, the use of drugs, in particular illicit drugs, tends to
be regional, even within the United States.
And the second is that the use of transportation may also
be very regional. In Europe we often see communities that have
a different relationship with their infrastructure. They may be
more walkable, more drivable, there are lower rates of car
ownership and higher rates of public transit use. So there may
be more alternatives available.
Mr. McKinley. I would like to pursue that further with you.
But also in your role that you have been with the Department,
and now in your role as the deputy, what keeps you up at night?
What do you think is the biggest problem you are facing for the
administration?
Ms. King. The thing that keeps me up at night is how to
help consumers understand the risks of the airbags that are on
the Do Not Drive recall issued on Monday. It is very important
that consumers understand whether or not they have a safe,
lifesaving airbag in their car. Again, the lifesaving airbags
save thousands of lives per year, but there are some few that
can injure and they can maim and they can kill.
And we have consumers who may be unaware. The fact that
many of these vehicles are older means that the consumers may
not be as likely to have a relationship with their dealership
or with the auto manufacturer.
We have been working with the manufacturers in their
outreach to the consumers, and we are finding different ways to
reach consumers. But what keeps me up at night is that there
may be people who don't know, they are not understanding the
urgency of the Do Not Drive recall.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
The final question is, I think it was your answer back to
Mr. Guthrie, I think it opened some curiosity on my part, which
is the mechanics. It is one thing when someone is driving the
car down the road and they could be tested for alcohol when
they are impaired, they are weaving.
If they are weaving and they are drug-related and pulled
over, the only test I heard was a blood test. We are certainly
not going to do a blood test on someone on the highway.
What is the mechanical part? An officer is assuming someone
is impaired and he pulls them over but there is no testing
device. Do they allow them to continue? Do they give them a
warning? Or do they stop them if they feel in their heart they
are impaired because of drugs? What happens mechanically?
Ms. King. I believe that may differ regionally, depending
on the officer's training. I can assure you that at NHTSA we
have research underway in our research program in our
behavioral division----
Mr. McKinley. What is happening now? The drugs are out
there. We are having problems right now.
Ms. King. I understand.
Mr. McKinley. Are they releasing them to continue driving?
Ms. King. Some forms of impairment are very similar to
alcohol, even though they may have other causes, and that
certainly would be captured by the standard field sobriety
tests that officers are using today.
Officers collect evidence of impairment and take that
information. The field sobriety tests that are used today would
identify signs of impairment. Although designed for alcohol,
they could detect other forms of impairment.
But we are working on research to identify field sobriety
tests that can be used for other substances to determine
whether there is even a difference. It is an emerging area.
Mr. McKinley. I hear you. I am dealing with the today, the
now. I am just curious about whether it is going to hold up in
court if we don't have any background on this, how that is
going to hold up a year from now.
Ms. King. I think I am going to have some good news for
you, because my conversations with the geographies that are
getting ahead of this, they are some great successes. And I am
looking forward to learning more about them and making sure
that we all can learn from them and adopt their best practices.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Deputy Administrator.
Following up on my colleague and good friend from West
Virginia, what keeps me up at night is that I get these cards
about that I need to take them into my dealer and nobody can
repair them. And so what are we going to do? Is it some reason,
that maybe the dealers are not getting reimbursed, or is it
just that they don't have the--to be able to fix these airbags
that are in our current vehicles?
Ms. King. When a car owner is asked to come and have the
replacement, there should be adequate supply. There should be
adequate supply of airbags to replace any unsafe airbags.
I would like anyone who does not hear from their dealership
that they can get the active recall remediated immediately to
contact NHTSA at 888-327-4236.
Mr. Green. OK. So there is a way we can do that. Because
like I said, it is almost like a joke sometimes. My
constituents say, ``I will get that. But I call and there is no
one available. And then I will get another card 5 months later
and they are still not available.''
But they are supposed to be available to our dealerships?
Ms. King. Because this is the largest and most complex
automotive recall in history, we are staging by risk. So it may
be that they are receiving a notification that there will later
be a request for them to come in. But the vehicles that need to
have a replacement now, there is a supply available. There
should be supply available. If not, contact NHTSA immediately.
Mr. Green. Is there on your website a list of those
particular vehicles?
Ms. King. Yes.
Mr. Green. Is there a requirement to send out that card for
something that is immediately like that, instead of someday we
will get our new airbags?
Ms. King. I have one of those cards, too, and my airbag has
already been replaced.
So, again, 50 million airbags, it is such a large and
complex program.
Mr. Green. I know.
Ms. King. I understand the efforts to notify may have
created confusion in some. But www.nhtsa.gov/recall, enter the
VIN, folks can find out.
Every time I got to my dealer, I ask them, ``Are you
sure?'' So I know that the dealerships are also very attentive
to this.
But I encourage people to reach out to NHTSA, to call us,
and to make sure that they are speaking with their dealership
and taking care of the problem.
And I am delighted to hear that you and your constituents
are attentive to the issue. As I mentioned, what keeps me up at
night is that people aren't aware.
Mr. Green. And I will share the NHTSA website and we will
put it on. I hope other members, too, that have the same
problem.
My other question is, in 2015 Representative Mullin and I
sponsored a provision on the FAST Act that allows small volume
car companies to produce up to 325 replica cars in a year for
the U.S. market and 5,000 for the export market. These are
brand new vehicles that look like vintage cars, like classic
Cobras, Mustangs.
And in our area, I have a DeLorean factory in my district,
and that is why I was interested in that bill because the owner
of that DeLorean inventory said, ``We could actually expand
this probably with 120 more employees.''
In Texas, we don't do a lot of car manufacturing up in the
Dallas/Fort Worth area, so I would like to have them in our
district.
NHTSA had until December 2016 to issue any necessary
regulations needed to allow these companies to start producing
replica vehicles, the only assessing regulation allowing
companies to register with NHTSA and file an annual report.
These companies have already made sizable investments and
are ready to go to work. It is important that they are able to
register with NHTSA in the production immediately in accordance
with the law. I would ask you, when is that going to happen?
Ms. King. Thank you.
If I, first of all, may thank you for your letter in the
fall. I was pleased have your letter and pleased to a reply.
We have looked into using guidance, but we have a
rulemaking coming out this year. And so I look forward to
hearing your constituents and others to comment on that
rulemaking. We should see that by summer.
Mr. Green. OK. So by the summer of 2018?
Ms. King. Yes.
Mr. Green. OK. Thank you.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Ms. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate it very
much.
Ms. King, I introduced H.R. 3413, which was eventually
rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act, which brings stakeholders
together to ensure we maximize mobility benefits for senior
citizens. How do you see self-driving vehicles improving the
lives of senior citizens?
Ms. King. Thank you for your question.
I think we all understand, not only the safety benefits,
but we are very, very excited about the opportunity to add
mobility to certain communities as a result of the innovative
technologies.
The aging community, of which I am slowly becoming a part,
is clearly one of the communities that can benefit from self-
driving cars, or forgive me, automated driving systems. So we
look forward to seeing the technologies evolve safely and test
safely so that we can see that mobility and safety promise come
to our streets.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you.
Next question. Given the significant mobility benefits of
self-driving cars, you just mentioned that, how is NHTSA
focusing on these certain segments of our population, such as
those with disabilities?
Ms. King. In the context of automated driving systems
specifically?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. King. Very good. So in our discussions of the automated
driving system promise, we are hosting many dialogues and
taking comments to understand not only the benefits, but the
concerns.
In particular, one of the things the research tells us, and
I think many of us read this in the newspaper reports, is that
consumers have questions and concerns about the emerging
technology. That is not surprising because the technology is
emerging and it is very hard for us all of us to understand a
thing we haven't experienced or seen yet.
So we are in dialogue with many of the manufacturers. Part
of that dialogue is, as described in A Vision for Safety 2.0,
to help us all understand where the sources of confusion are.
We find that terminology may be one of them. We all use
different terms. A moment ago I used a term I shouldn't have, I
said self-driving car. We speak about automated driving
systems.
But there are so many terms out there, right, level three,
level four, self-driving car, driverless car, automated driving
system. Even the terminology is confusing. It is confusing to
me at times.
We need to make sure we are adopting a common set of
terminology that makes it easier for us to have meaningful,
rich discussion with our communities, with state and local
governments, as well as with manufacturers.
So this is one of the things we are learning, that as the
technology develops we all need to circle up on some of the
terminology so we have more effective dialogue together as the
technology evolves safely.
Mr. Bilirakis. So do you envision a person, let's say a
senior or someone with disabilities, like myself, I have visual
difficulties, having access to an automated car, instead of a
self-driving car, in the near future? How far are we from
something like that? Now, something that is affordable,
obviously.
Ms. King. If there is one thing I learned during my time as
a research scientist at the old Bell Labs, is that the
development of technology goes at the pace it needs to go. So I
would be hesitant to forecast, because what consumers will
adopt, what the technology is ready for in a safe deployment or
safe development path, is something that is very difficult to
predict.
Certainly, it is my hope that the technology is safely
tested and deployed to provide the access to mobility for all
members of our community. But at NHTSA, as the leader of NHTSA,
I am committed to making sure that the testing and deployment
is safe and that we have an effective dialogue to ensure that
that is so.
Mr. Bilirakis. Of course safety is more important than
anything.
Let's see. I know you touched upon the opioid issue, so I
will go on to the next question.
Can you please explain how consumers can determine whether
they are affected by a recall? And I know that Representative
Green touched on this as well. But if you could expand, I
would, please, because this is very informative for our
constituents.
Again, can you please explain how consumers can determine
whether they are affected by a recall and offer other
recommendations as to what consumers should do if they find
themselves affected by a recall?
Ms. King. Thank you for asking. Www.nhtsa.gov, that is our
website, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
www.nhtsa.gov.
One will see there, right at the top of our web page, a
recalls banner. One can click and go in and enter a vehicle
identification number and see any outstanding recalls on one's
vehicle.
I routinely check it. I have become clearly much more
sensitive to the urgency of recalls since I have been at NHTSA.
One can enter one's email address and get an alert to remain
always current on outstanding recalls.
For those who may not have a computer or feel comfortable
doing so, a consumer can call the dealership, they can call the
manufacturer, and they can have it checked. I do use a
dealership for my own car, and I find it helpful that they keep
a file, and they will tell me whether or not there is anything
outstanding. And they can describe it to me if I have any
questions.
But the key is that consumers find out whether or not they
have an outstanding recall, and if it is an urgent recall or
any recall they should act. But in particular the Do Not Drive
recalls announced on Monday are absolutely critical. Do not
drive. Call the dealership. A tow truck will come. The recall
remedy is free.
Mr. Bilirakis. Give us the number, again, please, for those
who are watching.
Ms. King. Absolutely. Let's see, where did I put it? I
looked up from my piece of paper.
I would like, if you don't mind, if we could post it on
your website. I would recommend people go to www.nhtsa.gov. And
I seem to have misplaced phone number, in my sense of urgency
that consumers find out about the recalls outstanding on their
vehicles.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. And we want to put that
on our websites as well so that consumers can have access.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. So thank you very much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here as well. Thank
you for your work. Thank you for your service.
I am going to ask you to touch on a couple of different
rulemakings that I believe NHTSA was supposed to have begun and
just ask for an update on that process if I can.
So, first off, with regard to tires. The FAST Act mandated
that NHTSA write a rule to ensure that tire pressure monitoring
systems cannot be overridden, reset, or recalibrated in such a
way that the system will no longer detect when inflation
pressure has fallen below a significantly underinflated level.
NHTSA has yet to take any action on that requirement.
So, Ms. King, I was hoping you could shed some light on
when NHTSA will issue a final rule on that tire pressure
monitoring system.
Ms. King. Congressman Kennedy, we have begun work on all
requirements in the FAST Act, including the tire rules. It is
on our regulatory agenda. We are making progress forward, and
we look forward to taking next steps as described in our
regulatory agenda. I believe we have a proposed rule step
before we go to the final rule step. And I look forward to
discussing that with you.
Mr. Kennedy. And, ma'am, do you have any--I realize I am
putting you on the spot a little bit here--do you have any
idea, is that months, is that how many months? How long until
we think we are getting to that process?
Ms. King. I would like to consult the regulatory agenda and
send you the date that we have currently scheduled. I, myself,
have been receiving information about that rulemaking, and, I
will say, becoming smarter about the requirements in the tire
pressure monitoring system rulemaking.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. King. So I know it is something under active
discussion, not only from us, but from those interested
parties.
Mr. Kennedy. So if your staff could follow up with that, I
would appreciate it. Thank you.
Similarly, with the seatbelt reminder rulemaking, MAP-21
required that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require
rear seatbelt reminder systems. Again, my understanding is that
NHTSA has not taken any public action on that statutory
mandate, and, in fact, the agency has been sued by safety
advocates for its failure to take action.
Can you bring us up to date on whether NHTSA has initiated
a rulemaking proceeding on the rear seatbelt reminders?
Ms. King. Again, I would be happy to follow up with you on
the date, consulting the regulatory agenda. It is clearly very
important to us to protect all occupants of the car. Many of
the rulemakings addressing vehicle safety, we do research
before we issue a final rulemaking to make sure we consider any
unintended consequences of the rulemaking.
Mr. Kennedy. So, Ms. King, has the process started on that
yet, or is it underway? Where are we in it?
Ms. King. I would be happy to send more information about
the status. I will say, unlike the tire pressure monitoring
system, I personally have not been engaged in some of the
technical details. But I also have a large team that work very
diligently on all of the requirements under the FAST Act. I
know work has been initiated on all of them. And I am happy to
provide more detail about the stage of the work.
Mr. Kennedy. OK. I would appreciate that.
Finally, the vehicle-to-vehicle rulemaking. NHTSA has
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for vehicle-to-vehicle
communications in January of last year with comments due in
April of last year. This rulemaking is particularly anticipated
by many stakeholders. We have heard from a number of those
stakeholders that their plans are on hold until a final rule is
issued.
Can you give us any guidance as to what the timeline might
be for that as well?
Ms. King. Absolutely. I think we share an enthusiasm for
the safety benefits that vehicle-to-vehicle technologies can
offer.
We received, as you know, a large number of comments, very
technical comments on the proposed rulemaking, which we are
going through now.
The comments had, first of all, technical matter and
diverse comments. So we look forward to learning from them. And
we certainly hope that the dedicated spectrum will, in fact, be
reserved and applied to vehicle safety technologies.
Mr. Kennedy. So I appreciate that, and obviously safety
being a primary concern. If I can push you a little bit here.
Again, months? How many? Where are we? Do you want to follow up
again? Kind of how long, what does that timeframe look like?
Ms. King. We have a commitment to safety and to getting it
right. When it comes to complex technologies with a safety
relationship, I would commit that we get it right and then we
move forward in a way that doesn't pick winners and losers, but
in fact is going to optimize the vehicle safety opportunity to
the American public.
It is difficult to put a timeline on getting it right,
particularly with technical matter, but you have my commitment
to work with your staff, to remain engaged, to hear from
stakeholders, and make sure that we move forward in a way that
assures safety in the best possible manner with respect to
vehicle-to-vehicle technologies.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I have got one last question, but
given the time, I will happily submit that for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. King, for your service.
I think one of the things, I will just make a general
comment, what you are hearing today, and you are well aware of
this, is that at Federal agencies it is not necessarily about
the money, it is bureaucracy, right? And you have seen the
level of frustration of Members of Congress on both sides.
What can be controversial about knowing whether there is a
child left in the back seat of a car, right, and have some
notification of that? The only controversy is how much it is
going to cost to put it in the cars, right? We all know that.
So it is a frustrating thing because, if I had a dime for
every time I hear from Federal agencies--this is not to you
personally--that we are in the process, legal is looking at it,
and this, I wouldn't have to have a job. I would have enough
dimes to not have a job.
So I just want you to know and the public to know that
there is a high level of frustration amongst not only NHTSA,
but other agencies. And since this is about safety, and I was a
physician before and others on this committee are concerned
about safety, the level of frustration is pretty high,
especially when we hear this in hearings across the spectrum.
These rules need to be out there, they need to be done more
quickly, not only for safety reasons, but to give an efficient
regulatory framework for industry.
So in that vein, with the CAFE standards, for example, and
EPA hasn't indicated a timeline for their revised final
determination or subsequent proposed rulemaking, I think in the
interest of efficiency regulatory framework, we need to get
going on this. And so I don't expect you to comment on that.
The one thing is I am interested in the line of questioning
about THC. I was a physician. There is evidence to show that
chronic THC use in the developing brain, for example, young
people, all the way into their mid- to late twenties, has long-
term cognitive changes.
And so in that vein, for recreational use, I am against
legalization, although there are specific potential medical
reasons for having THC available, although it is usually the
CBD oil, the CBD extract that actually has the medical benefit.
It seems to me that we need to work more quickly on
determining a national standard and what constitutes impairment
as it relates to THC. We have states legalizing recreational
marijuana, and that is their right. But the Federal level, as
you know, it is still a Schedule I drug.
So I am interested, you said there is a roundtable
discussion among Federal agencies on this issue. But we need to
do more than that. What are your thoughts? We need like a
serious working group that meets to try to determine a legal
standard.
There is a field sobriety test. People beat that in court.
You just get a lawyer and you go to court and you say, ``There
is no scientific evidence I was impaired,'' and you question
the integrity of the officers or whatever you do, right? And
you can win that. You can't do that if you have a blood alcohol
level or you blow into a breathalyzer and it says you are 0.1.
You can do that.
And so what are your thoughts on that? How do we get to the
0.08 in some states? What was the process of getting to
determining, hey, if you have more than that when you blow a
breathalyzer, you are impaired?
Ms. King. Responding to your question about the drugged-
impaired driving initiative, I absolutely agree, there should
be more. The meeting we have on March 15 is meant to be a
summit. We are calling it a call to action. It is a call to
action. It is not the only action.
What our goal is with the drug-impaired driving initiative
is to set a strategy, to set a path, and to articulate a vision
of what good looks like to answer exactly the questions that
you are describing. We have in place a framework and a system
for alcohol-impaired driving, and we do not have that level----
Mr. Bucshon. Right. But how did we get there with alcohol?
Ms. King. How did we get there with alcohol?
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Ms. King. I was not a part of that process.
Mr. Bucshon. I know, it has been decades, right?
Ms. King. Right. So I look forward to having best practices
from that dialogue. Many of the experts we are bringing into
the summit on March 15 are those who have been engaged in this
discussion for some time. So I look forward to learning from
them and to sharing those learnings out.
But you have my commitment that as part of the drug-
impaired driving initiative, we will be considering all forms
of impairment and we will be thinking how can we leverage the
learnings of the alcohol-impaired driving experience, expand
them to drug impairment, and make sure that everybody
understands any form of impaired driving, drug or alcohol----
Mr. Bucshon. We just need a national legal standard, law
enforcement and the courts. If you go and you refuse a drug
test, whatever, if you refuse a breathalyzer, whatever, we need
a legal test.
And I just don't see that happening at the state level
because they don't have the resources to determine that. Even
though ultimately they may decide where they want to be on
this.
It just seems like time is a factor here. We should have
been doing this decades ago.
The reality is, in my opinion as a medical professional, a
lot of these things, it is based on money, right? It is just
based on, if we determine that here is this legal standard for
THC, then we are going to get pushed back from states that have
legalized it because a bunch of their people are going to be
getting arrested for impaired driving, and that is just the way
it is going to be.
With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, apologize for not being here. We do have another
hearing going on upstairs. I apologize, Ms. King, if this has
already been asked.
Obviously, you and Dr. Bucshon were discussing the issue of
impaired drivers. I am from a state that has not legalized
marijuana, but I recognize that other states have, and so this
is a concern that is, I think, something we are going to
encounter with greater frequency.
And I think even in your testimony this morning you
referenced the combination of, say, alcohol with another
substance. And in fact we had just such an incident occurred in
a district that I represent a couple of years ago. A young man
who was crossing, probably outside of the crosswalk, a fairly
busy street, and, yes, it was after dark, was struck by an
individual, a young man driving a Jeep.
And the man in the crosswalk died. And the young man who
was driving the Jeep, I think had a 0.04 percent alcohol and a
positive test, qualitative test for marijuana.
No charges were brought. So his mother comes to see me and
says, ``What in the world is going on here?'' You thought that
she had a vendetta against the young man driving the Jeep, but
she has lost a son. It does seem like there possibly was some
component of impairment of the person who was operating the
vehicle and where is the protection for her son in that
exchange?
So I would just be interested in some of the things that
you are thinking about and doing. Even if it is education for
our local district attorneys, that be mindful of the fact that,
yes, they are under the legal limit for alcohol, but a positive
test for marijuana may be difficult to associate a temporal
relationship. But on the other hand, it may have a bearing, and
this may be a case that needs to go to the grand jury and not
simply dismissed as an unfortunate accident.
So let me hear your thoughts on that.
Ms. King. Thank you very much, Congressman Burgess. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on this.
Although I have only been at NHTSA it is now 20 \1/2\
weeks, I believe today is my 20 \1/2\-week anniversary, already
in my time at NHTSA I have spent two visits to the State of
California in the fall where they have been educating me about
the work that is being done in the laboratories, in the DUI
courts. I have met with prosecutors who are finding ways to
prosecute despite the difficulty in actually having good,
robust laboratory results that are temporally appropriate for
determining impairment in a prosecution.
What I have found is, yes, we have a ways to go, but, yes,
we have some best practices to share. What I have found at
NHTSA is that we have pockets of activity in different places.
In the County of Orange in California, again, Congresswoman
Walters' district has a great deal of learnings for us, but
other areas as well where we can both leverage the best
practices. But there are still gaps.
None of us, no one alone is going to solve the problem, and
none of us alone have the answers. My role at NHTSA, I am not a
physician and I certainly have not had a history of working
only on this issue, but at NHTSA our concern for safe driving
gives us the opportunity to convene and to bring together the
dialogue and to foster a community that can leverage our
strength together.
I want to make sure that the best practices are identified
so that we can all start using them to save lives today, and
that we set a strong vision for where we need to be as a
country, identifying the gaps and identifying where we are on
progress toward those gaps so we can close them.
It is unacceptable that we would see people, understanding
with our Nation's history that impairment kills, it is
unacceptable that we would allow continued impairment from
illicit drugs to injure families on our roadways.
It is heartbreaking. You described a story. We all feel the
pain of needless loss at every life, in particular around
needless impaired driving.
Mr. Burgess. So there was a young man who came to see me
whose parents were lost in an automobile accident where the
driver of the truck that hit them was impaired, and even
admitted the impairment. His frustration was, even though this
individual went to jail, it was for a 3-month time for driving
with a suspended license. The impairment did not even enter
into the prosecution. And that is a thing I think we have to
address.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. King, for being here today.
And I appreciate NHTSA's recent announcement to launch its
drugged-driving initiative. Law enforcement, we know, must have
the tools it needs to determine impaired driving, particularly
drug impairment.
Last Congress we passed the FAST Act, which included
language I championed that required NHTSA to study marijuana-
impaired driving and how it affects individuals behind the
wheel. Additionally, that study asked NHTSA to work on a
roadside test for impairment, including a device capable of
measuring marijuana levels. My colleagues have also raised this
issue.
But I would like to get some more of your thoughts beyond
addressing the legal limits of the challenges we face in
addressing drug impairment on our roadways and what steps that
Congress can take to start addressing this issue.
Ms. King. First of all, Congresswoman, may I thank you for
your support of the marijuana report to Congress that was
submitted last year. That report was in fact one of the pieces
that educated me and caused me, as I stepped into my role at
NHTSA, to take on the drug-impaired driving initiative.
So thank you very much for your leadership on this issue
that is of such critical importance at the Federal, state, and
local levels.
I do not at this point have a recommendation for
congressional action because there is what is known and what is
not known. I don't feel as though there has been a
comprehensive assessment of the gaps across all drug-impaired
driving.
We have, as a Nation, spoken about marijuana-impaired
driving, THC products. We have spoken about opioid-impaired
driving. But in fact the laboratories, and I will cite the
crime lab of Orange County in your own community, they are
testing now for 46 different substances, I believe.
And what I hear from the toxicologists in your community is
that not only is it a challenge that people may have several
substances on board at the same time, or that they may be
masking with alcohol, but in fact that the specific chemical
substances change. If it is a synthetic substance, the formula
changes, and that means that the chemical test the toxicologist
must apply, that will change, too.
So forgive me for getting in the weeds a little bit too
much there.
But thanks to the work that you encouraged that was
submitted last year, and thanks to the very skills and the
patience of those who have been educating me where the rubber
hits the road, where the risks are in the field, I have taken
on that commitment to figure out what are those gaps, in
partnership with the stakeholders, state, and local
governments. What do we know? What do we not know?
And then, from there, set a vision for a course for the
future, which I think it would be appropriate for us at that
time to get back to you with what we think the gaps are and
where working with Congress is absolutely a critical piece.
If I might add, public awareness is already identified as a
gap. People know that they should not drive with alcohol
impairment, but in speaking with the local law enforcement
officials, it sounds as though our communities may not be as
aware that it is not OK to drive buzzed. We have at NHTSA
public awareness campaigns through our partnerships with
states. We are trying to raise awareness, but simply helping
people understand that driving impaired with drugs can kill.
That is an immediate gap that we know that we can address
today. I would seek your support and partnership on that. It is
important we educate the public to drive safely when they are
ready to drive and not when they are impaired.
Mrs. Walters. I think that is a really good point because,
for so many years, it was all about drunk driving. And now we
have entered sort of a new phase, if you will, on this whole
marijuana issue that we have to reeducate our people in this
country to make sure that they understand. That is a really
good point.
I also introduced H.R. 3405, which was included in the SELF
DRIVE Act, that expands the FAST Act testing exemption to new
entrants developing safe-driving technology. Can you please
speak to how important it is to maintain a level playing field
for any type of company that wishes to test this technology?
Ms. King. And thank you very much for that provision. We
think it is very important that the emerging technologies be
developed by people who are able to do it best. We think in
this time of very revolutionary changes in automotive safety
technology that there may be ideas coming from the traditional
auto manufacturers, but there also may be ideas coming from
academia or other organizations as well. So we think it is very
important that we have an environment that welcomes safety
driving technologies from wherever it comes, as we go through
this journey of seeing safe deployments and testing on our
roadways.
Mrs. Walters. One last question. In your testimony, you
state we are currently undergoing transportation
transformation. And if we delay action on these changes, such
as self-driving vehicles, do you believe investment and
innovation will be moved abroad?
Ms. King. As an economist, I am formally trained as an
economist, and I believe that the investment will generally go
where the return is, and so I would like to see that the
investment in these potentially life-changing technologies
remain here in the United States, that we maintain a leadership
role in automotive technology.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The rest of the gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. King, I introduced H.R. 3411, legislation that was
eventually rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act which brings together
stakeholders to make recommendations on cybersecurity for
testing and deployment of self-driving vehicles. Can you share
with me your observations on the importance of cybersecurity
concerns and the role that NHTSA will be playing?
Ms. King. I will be very happy to. Thank you for the
question. Cybersecurity is clearly very important to us as we
have become an increasingly digital world, and automotive
technology is a part of that. One of the roles that NHTSA is
playing is in encouraging the conversation through the Auto
ISAC, the Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is a
collaborative group of auto manufacturers and cybersecurity
experts and also suppliers into that industry developing best
practices for sharing information. We did issue a guidance in
2016 which we are very proud of. We have also asked that
manufacturers disclose in their voluntary safety self-
assessments how they consider cybersecurity.
I would add a key component of this in my own personal
message on cybersecurity is that cybersecurity is not the
domain of highly technical experts alone, but in fact
cybersecurity is a concern to all of us. We see from our
experience, whether it be on our home computers or on our
phones, that there may be vulnerabilities that are driven by
users. And so part of the cybersecurity journey will be to
educate all of us to be thoughtful about how we use our devices
or our cars and make sure that we all are sensitive and
partners in the cybersecurity journey.
NHTSA is very excited about the Auto ISAC in particular and
looks forward to having more to share out of that effort.
Mr. Costello. What is your expectation on deliverables?
Ms. King. On deliverables? We do have a guidance that was
issued in 2016, and we are now expecting to see more voluntary
safety self-assessments from manufacturers which will describe
how they address cybersecurity. What we see during this time of
rapid technology change is that the deliverables evolve
depending on the need and out of the dialogue. So I expect to
see more work out of the Auto ISAC. I expect to see
manufacturers not only issuing their voluntarily self-
assessments but perhaps updating them to reflect what they
learned as the technology evolves and as they learn from one
another. And then NHTSA of course will stand ready to continue
to add or shape the conversation and to continue to drive the
importance of this issue going forward.
Mr. Costello. Now that is separate and apart from the new
safety data initiative that will integrate data on highway
design data with known crashes so that DOT will be able to
analyze and estimate crash risk. Is that correct? That is a
separate initiative?
Ms. King. That is right. We have two initiatives actually
at the Department, one of them the safety data pilot programs
and one of them specifically with respect to the automated
driving systems. The automated driving systems data pilot
programs or pilot dialogue as well. Both of them are intended
to help us modernize the way we think about the use of data.
With automated drive systems, we are thinking about data-driven
safety. We think about our role at NHTSA as a facilitator. We
think about, where can we start small and then scale up in
order to coordinate the use of data, reduce costs, and improve
the effectiveness of data for managing safety risks? The pilot
programs are an effort to understand whether the rich sources
of data that are not talking together today can be better
leveraged to forecast risks on our highways so that we can
operate more safely.
Mr. Costello. How do you view V-2-V technology maturing?
And at what point in time do you think that we will see either
more guidance from NHTSA or sort of whole scale buy-in from the
automotive industry? Much is there, I think, but there is a
little bit of--I don't way to say tension, but could you just
share your observations on what you see moving forward there?
Ms. King. It is a very interesting time. We all recognize
the value of the safety benefits that can come from V-2-V
technology. I don't know whether tension is the wrong word in
that we see that technologies emerging and hopefully learning
from one another. The critical thing here is to make sure that,
as we progress, given the importance of the safety technologies
to our roadways and to our drivers and consumers, that the
technologies evolve in a way that provides the benefit that we
all hope for. At the Department of Transportation, we like to
avoid picking winners and losers. Right now, there is a
vigorous discussion among I will say the more technical people
and the suppliers and manufacturers around I will say two key
technologies in particular. I encourage that discussion, even
if it does bring tension, because we need to get the answer
right for the Nation.
Mr. Costello. Sure. Before I yield back, I would agree, I
am not sure tension was the right word. I think obviously there
is a little bit of uncertainty, and that may owe itself to the
fact that the technologies are still evolving, and we don't
want to cement things too early. So I think that I appreciate
you for coming up with a better word than the word that I used
in the premise of my question.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
At this time, seeing that there are no other members asking
questions today, Ms. King, we really appreciate your testimony
today. And you kind of walked around the entire spectrum of
what we are looking at. A lot of issues that the members had
today were about safety, cybersecurity, issues with THC. When I
was in the Ohio legislature for 11 years and chairing the
judiciary and the criminal committees there, these were issues
that we dealt with, especially talking you go about THC, and
the question was, when you are looking at drugged driving and
not drunk driving, but also when you are talking about what we
were looking at today the with DUID and also about masking. And
so there are a lot of things going on out there. I know, in
Ohio, on some of our roads, we have got signs up to report to
the highway patrol about drugged driving right now. So there
are a lot of things out there. And we appreciate your testimony
today, but we expect that from someone who is a former E&C'er.
So we appreciate your being with us today.
I have a letter, a document that has been submitted for the
record by unanimous consent, a letter from the Center for Auto
Safety. If there is no objection, the letter is accepted
without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record. I ask witnesses to submit their responses
within 10 business days upon receipt of questions.
And, without objection, the subcommittee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]