i call and she tells me who to call. so that's very good. to the extent possible. it would be great if you would reflect things that you have heard about the hill and your remarks. and then rachel gold. she just wrote a wonderful paper -- i shouldn't say "just". on coercion. that's an issue that we are concerned about. that some women may feel -- the lieutenant governor brought up about males telling women what to do.

then the brooking institution

hosts the panel on birth control and family planning. automotive industry executives and regulators and consumer advocates testified before a house subcommittee on improving vehicle and roadway safety. this hearing is two hours and 40 minutes. >> if everyone will take their seats, committee will come to order. good morning. i want to welcome everyone to our hearing today on examining ways to improve vehicle and roadway safety. i will recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. certainly lives dependent on the safety of cars, safety of trucks, and on the roads themselves in the united states. and on the whole the data is good around the decrease in

fatalities against miles driven. but the hearings over the last two years have certainly underlined the severity of problems that do exist, and there's no room for going slow when it comes to safety and certainly deception cannot and will not be tolerated. it is incumbent upon us, the national highway traffic safety administration, and others to assure absolutely compliance with vehicle safety standards and processes. lives the depend on it. it is also our responsibility to revisit the adequate si of safety standards and processes that determine whether they provide sufficient protection to our nation's motorists. this past year i think it has been clear to many of us on the committee and certainly clear to me that this is not always the case and that there is room for improvement. to that end, the discussion

draft that we will examine today includes modifications to certain federal motor vehicle safety standards and their processes that will enhance safety practices amongst automakers at the national traffic highway safety administration itself and provide more information to consumers about vehicle safety and foster the development of new automotive technologies that will save lives. some of these modifications include updating how the national highway traffic safety administration makes information available to consumers. the discussion draft will -- before publicizing recall notices to consumers as well. these changes are intended to improve overall recall awareness by providing drivers were more complete information about a safety recall and giving them the means to take immediate action to get their vehicles

fixed once the defect notice is received. the discussion draft also contains proposaled intended to improve how the national traffic safety administration collects and analyzes vehicle safety information. to increase accountability and improve safety practices amongst vehicle manufacturers, the discussion draft extends their remedy and their obligations under recalls and increases the time they must maintain safety records to facilitate the identification of potential defects and institutes safety incentives that encourage investment into next generation's safety technologies. after a record year for recalls, the draft we will examine today

also discusses roadway safety, vehicle safety, and is a continuation of this subcommittee's efforts to restore confidence in american motorists that the cars that they drive are safe, that the recall process works, and that automakers and the national highway traffic safety administration are capable of keeping pace with the technology and the complexity of cars in the future. i certainly want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimonies. i look forward to an engaging and lively discussion on these issues as we seek to improve auto safety, save more lives, and ultimately benefit the driving public. with that, i will yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding today's hearing on a legislative effort to enhance auto safety and improve the recall process. i think it is a mistake to hold this hearing without a non-government data security

witness. this draft legislation includes provisions related to privacy and data protection and it would benefit all of us to better understand the implication of those provisions. it has been plenty months since the initial gm recall and you think this committee would have acted sooner. as we see again today with the toyota recall of 6.5 million vehicles, these safety issues aren't going away. as a sponsor of legislation, i'm happy we're finally having a legislative hearing. unfr unfortunately, i believe we're having it on the wrong bill. the vehicle safety improvement act, the bill i introduced with ranking member pallone and five other members of the subcommittee in march. nhtsa needs to improve rear

crashworthiness and every automaker as a executive responsible for certifying the accuracy and completeness relating to safety investigations. i'm glad those provisions were included, but it would have been much better and more useful for the majority to engage in a bipartisan discussion during this bill. had that dialogue taken place, many of the weaknesses in the bill could have been addressed prior to this hearing. it includes several provisions that would enhance safety and improve the efficacy of recalls, none of which are included in this draft legislation. the vsia would more than double nhtsa's funding for vehicle safety programs. this bill provides no explicit additional funding for the agency.

the vsia would increase the quality of information shared. while there is a nod to those priorities in this draft legislation, there's little meaningful change from the status quo. the bill would require manufacturers to fix all recalled vehicles free of charge rather than just those that were purchased within the past ten years. this discussion draft would not. under vsia, nhtsa would have authority to expedite recalls. neither of those changes are part of this discussion draft. beyond those missteps, the republican draft legislation takes egregious steps in the wrong direction. the bill would give automakers a break from health based carbon

emissions requirements. in the wake of volkswagen's cheating, it makes no sense we would give carmakers a free pass to pollute beyond standards needed to maintain public health. this provision is a big win for the volkswagens of the world but does nothing to help the public. i urge my colleagues to engage in a bipartisan legislative process that will yield a stronger and more comprehensive bill. i'm anxious to participate in that kind of dialogue. we still have an opportunity to do that. unless there is someone else who would want some time, i yield back my time. >> chair recognizes mr. upton. five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a car isn't just how you get

around when you're from michigan. it's a neighbor's job. it's the backbone of our state's my. we take great pride in the industry's inventiveness, resilience, and creativity. it's helped the industry become a global leader. but over the past couple of years, we've seen the best of what the auto industry has to offer. it's no secret that i'm an optimist and believe that the future is bright for the auto industry for michigan and for the country, but unfortunately we have seen safety shortcomings and flat out dishonesty along the way. we're in the midst of an exciting time of automotive. what was once science fiction is now becoming reality. this innovation is to be applauded not only because it will revolutionize driving, but

because of what it means for vehicle safety, the environment, and most importantly save lives. the staff discussion draft that we're going to review today is a starting point to achieve those ends. it includes proposals intended to foster greater vehicle and roadway safety. some pieces like having a corporate officer responsible for safety compliance certainly isn't new opposi. other ideas may need to evolve. there's good talk about forming a working group to address cybersecurity best practices. the draft seeks to address concerns around recall awareness and incentivizes automakers to invest in technologies that will

indeed save more lives. this is a life-saving endeavor. i look forward to a thoughtful and engaging dialogue on the merits of each proposal. while we have a ton of witnesses today, i want to invite everyone with an interest to give us feedback on how we can improve the legislation. our work continues to improve safety for drivers and i yield my time to marsha blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our witnesses for being here today. chairman burgess, i want to thank you for this hearing. i think you have chosen a great

day. it is october 21st, 2015. remember the significance of that date and hear we are talking about interconnectedness of cars and using tablets, so perfect day to have this discussion. chairman burgess, i thank you for the draft that you have brought forward. my constituents are truly interested in this issue whether they work with toyota or gm or nissan or in the after market auto parts industry with autozone. when you look at the stats that we're going to have a quarter billion interconnected cars on the roadway by 2020, by 2020, and the significance of that, as automobiles have become more computerized, it's important for us to look at these technological advances such as the vehicle to vehicle communication.

there's a lot of curiosity about that. we look forward to getting some answers as to how this is going to work, and i thank the gentleman from texas for initiating the conversation and yield back. >> chair, thanks the gentlelady. the chairman recognizes mr. pallone five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> the title of today's hearing refers to vehicle and roadway safety, but it's clear from the draft before us that safety is not the focus. instead of improving au auto safety, this draft weakens consumer and environmental protections. traffic fatalities group in the u.s. by -- injuries are also up. medically related motor vehicle

injuries grew by 33% since 2014. earlier this year we introduced the vehicle safety improvement act of 2015 with an eye towards comprehensive auto safety legislation. t it gets nhtsa the information, resources, and authorities needed to protect consumers and also empowers consumers with more information and ensures used cars are refixed before resold. this draft would give automakers credits towards greenhouse gas emissions. even though there's no apparent link between these technologies and lower emissions. manufacturers would get credits for things they are already

doing, not as an incentive to improve safety. nhtsa has already released its proposal to require v-to-v enabled cars. many crash avoidance technologies are part of a prominent safety rating from the insurance institute for highway safety. automakers have considerable incentive to add those features to cars. i'm alarmed that congress would consider giving automakers a way around environmental regulations. auto companies would receive a pass on pollution because they install communications devices in their vehicles. communication devices will not prevent greenhouse gases. i'm also concerned about the privacy and cybersecurity provisions in this draft. as more high-tech vehicle safety

equipment is integrated into cars, strong consumer privacy and data protections are more important than ever. but instead of improving privacy and data protections, this giving automakers liability protection. because my time is limited, i want to turn to process for a moment. i'm disappointed by the unilateral approach taken by the majority in drafting this legislation. for months, we have been trying to work with our republican colleagues to draft auto safety legislation that would meaningfully reduce deaths. but instead of pursuing a bipartisan approach, the majority chose to prepare this legislation behind closed doors. regardless, if the majority wants to open up the clean air act, then this bill must be the subject of a hearing.

mr. chairman, this draft in my opinion fails to increase auto safety. it harms the environment. this is a weak bill that i can't support. yet again i can only express my hope that in the near future we can work together to make real progress towards improving auto safety. i yield back. >> this concludes opening statements. the chair would like to remind members pursuant to committee rules all members opening statements will be made part of the record. beg again, we want to thank our witnesses for being here today taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's hearing will consist of two panels. each will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions. once we conclude with questions on the first panel, we'll take a

brief recess to set up for the second panel. our first witness panel for today's hearing is to include dr. mark rosekind, the administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration and mrs. maneesha mithal, the associate director of the division of privacy and identity protection at the federal trade commission. we appreciate both of you being here today and sharing your time with us. we'll begin the panel with you, dr. rosekind, and you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> it's a privilege to rep the men and women of the national highway traffic and safety administration. our mission is focused on saving the 32,719 lives lost, prechting the 2.1 million injuries, and reducing the 5.4 million crashes that occurred on american roadways in 2013.

in just the last ten months, the agency has done the following. strengthened our oversight and enforcement on vehicle safety, issuing penalties for recall and safety reporting failures and making innovative orders to improve safety performance in the auto industry. we've embraced secretary fox's call to accelerate technologies that can save lives. accelerating proposed rule making on vehicle to vehicle technology. we're taking view of our regulatory structure. announcing our intent to add automatic emergency braking to our auto system. and we have answered the call of this committee and the american

public to improve our own performance in identifying safety defects. to -- these efforts are underscore nhtsa's commitment to safety. whatever decisions this committee or the congress will make, nhtsa will seek to do all we can. with your help, we can do everyoeven more. in the grow america act, secretary fox proposed significant enhancements to nhtsa's safety authorities, including imminent hazard authorities similarly held by other safety regulators, criminal penalties for vehicle hacking, and significantly enhance civil penalty authority to provide meaningful deterrence against violations of the

vehicle safety act. this would provide significant funding to enhance our office of defects investigation and to address emerging issues such as cybersecurity. these proposals are essential to enhance our safety mission. and as i told your senate colleagues in june, failure to address gaps in our available authority, personnel, and resources are a known risk to safety. nhtsa has been only able to spend a few days on this legislative proposal that was released late last week. i would like to thank the committee members and staff with their engagement with nhtsa and hope productive conversations can continue. the discussion draft proposal includes a provision that would provide fuel economy to automakers for deploying advanced crash technologies. i would raise two general points here. first, there should not be a

tradeoff between safety and public health. the american public expects vehicles that address both safety concerns and public health and environmental concerns. second, the automakers already have ample incentive to deploy safety technologies. the lives they can save and the injuries they can prevent. state agencies are one potential touch point for owners, especially second or third owners of used vehicles. the technology is not yet in place, which is why grow america proposed a pilot program to work through these issues. under the draft proposal, states that do not meet the requirement would be kicked out of the national driver register, that identifies traffic offenders and ensures that commercial drivers

have clean records. the current proposals may have the opposite of their intended effect. by providing regulated entities majority reputation on committees to establish appropriate practices and standards and th standar standards, the proposals could undermine nhtsa's ability to set safety. the draft proposal would require nhtsa to prepare recall notices with the manufacturer. this proposal would require nhtsa to withhold safety defect information from the public and give the manufacturers responsible for the defect control over the timeline and release of nhtsa initiated recall actions. this proposal weakens the agency's enforcement authority as in direct conflict with other

congressional legislation. the best response to recent events to auto safety is -- to achieve its mission by working together to address gaps in our authorities and resources. discussion of these and other issues is essential to our shared goal of greater safety on america's roads. i thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman, yields back. >> dr. burgess, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, i'm maneesha mithal. i appreciate the opportunity to present the commission's testimony on the privacy and security related provisions of the discussion draft to provide greater transparency, accountability, and safety for nhtsa. we are the primary federal

agency charged with protecting the people with safety and privacy. in addition to enforcing a wide range of privacy and security laws, the ftc educates consumers and businesses. the next conference will take place on november 5th in austin, texas. on the policy front we conducted a workshop on the internet of things where we specifically hosted a panel on connected cars. we released a report on the workshop earlier this year. with this background we're pleased to offer our views on title 3 of the discussion draft. we have serious concerns about the privacy, hacking, and security provisions of title 3. first as to privacy, we're

concerned that the safe harbor from ftc action is too broad. a manufacturer who submits a privacy policy that meets requirements but does not follow them may not be subject to any enforcement mechanisms. even though the privacy policy is only required to describe privacy protections for vehicle data, the commission could be proincluded from bringing a section 5 action on the manufacturer's website, even if the misrepresentation is unrelated to vehicle data. security researchers, however, have uncovered security vulnerabilities in connected cars by accesses such systems. responsible researchers often contact companies to inform them of these vulnerabilities so the companies can voluntarily make their cars safer. by prohibiting such access even

for research purposes, this provision would likely discourage such research to the debtriment of consumers privacy and safety. the bill creates an advisory council to develop best practices. manufacturers that implement these best practices will have a safe harbor. however, the current draft may not result in best practices robust enough to protect consumers for several reasons. first, at least 50% of the council's membership must consist of representatives of automobile manufacturers because any best practices approved by the council will be by a simple majority of members, manufacturers alone could decide what best practices would be adopted. second, the discussion draft contains eight areas the best practices may but not must cover. in this respect, the draft does not create a minimum standard for best practices. third, there's no requirement to update practices in light of

emerging risks in technologies. fourth, but creating a clear evidence standard, the bill gives nhtsa too little discretion and would likely result in the approval of plans that meet the bare minimum best practices on paper. finally, the proposed safe harbor is so broad it would immunize manufacturers from liability, even as to deceptive statements. for example, false claims on a manufacturers website about its use of firewalls would not be actionable if these subjects were covered by the best practices. in sum, the commission understands the desire to provide businesses with certainty and incentives to implement best practices. however, the security provisions of the discussion draft would allow manufacturers to receive substantial liability protections in exchange for weak

best practices by a council they control. t thank you for the opportunity to provide the commission's views on the discussion draft. we lo-- >> gentlelady yields back. we will move to the question and answer portion of the hearing. to begin, i'll recognize myself for five minutes. ms. mithal, let me ask you to clarify. you mentioned there would be one of your start with security business initiatives in austin, texas. is that's correct? >> that's correct. >> what's the date you gave for that? >> november 5th. >> i wanted to repeat that

because although my congressional district is a little north of austin it obviously will effect people in my state. dr. rosekind, thank you for being here. thank you for always being very generous with your time and very forthcoming whenever they are questions. thank you for opening up the doors of the national highway traffic safety administration to come and visit with you and see the good work that you and the men and women employed there -- the good work that you're doing. i have a copy of the inspector general's report. this was issued in june of this year. can you take just a moment and go through which recommendations have been implemented? >> certainly. just as context, i'll be clear that one of the things we did was actually commit to fulfilling all 17

recommendations within a year of which the inspector general made sure i understood that's never done, to actually make that kind of commitment, and we actually gave a schedule. i mention that because the first one has been completed two weeks ahead of schedule. >> very well. can you briefly describe the operations for the council of vehicle electronics, vehicle software, and emerging technologies, that council that's being set up at nhtsa? >> the current -- sorry. just trying to clarify. >> is there a council for vehicle electronics at nhtsa? >> we have an office. >> an office. >> right. >> okay. >> in fact, and i'm just trying to get my bearings there. in 2015, i actually -- and we can send it to you, we published vehicle and cybersecurity. it actually describes how over

the last few years starting in 2012 we reorganized our offices to have a specific office that addresses that with people vehicle looking at that. >> is there a separate office for vehicle software? >> that's in that -- and we have seven people in d.c. and three at our ohio vehicle research and testing center that's there. >> and who leads that office of that council? >> well, right now the associate administrator is the technical lead on that. >> and that also includes the center for emerging technologies at nhtsa? >> correct. >> is there a mission statement that has been published for that office or that council? >> i don't know if there's a specific mission statement for that office, but all of that would be in the 2015 nhtsa and vehicle cybersecurity that we'll send you.

>> if you were to give us a thumbnail of what the mission of that office is, could you do that? >> sure. you know, in 2012, i think this was trying to look ahead. what's been interesting for me is everyone saying this is an issue now. this has been on us for at least three years, starting with a structural change to the agency that would have at least focused people looking at this. and they're looking at policy, testing, research, and having continual interactions in the industry. >> let me just ask you does federal trade commission currently coordinate with the national highway traffic safety administration on data privacy and security? >> we do, yes. for example, we've had several meetings with nhtsa staff. we also commented on their report on vehicle to vehicle communications last year. >> let me just take a minute, dr. rosekind. this may not be entirely within

your area, but you're aware another subcommittee held a hearing on the volkswagen emission issue. do you know what are the standard allowable nitrous oxide emissions are? can you give me a figure in grams or liters of what is allowable under nitrous oxide emission? >> i can make sure we send you a technical report so i can give you a specific number. >> that would be great. and i would like to know what that was in calendar year 2000 as a reference point. would that be possible? >> you bet. >> i will yield back. >> thank you. i'd actually like the victims or their families of the gm switch

failure to raise your hands. i want to thank you very much for coming today. i know this is of great interest to you. i have a question for dr. rosekind. so this draft would require nhtsa to coordinate with au auto manufacturers before publishing any notice of vehicle defect or compliance concern. it seems as though a manufacturer could obstruct the notification process at least temporarily by failing to submit the vehicle identification numbers. how would requiring nhtsa to coordinate with manufacturers before publishing a notice of a defect present a risk to nhtsa's ability to issue recalls when necessary? >> and i'd like to handle this actually from two angles.

one is what you're highlighting. this actually addresses nhtsa initiated actions. why that's important. because many of the recalls that occur are initiated by the automakers. they identify something and they move forward. a nhtsa initiated recall is because they have denied the need to do that and we've had to have the action. the concern is the timeline and control of that would be basically under the control of the person who created the defect. but i think the other part really has to do withholding the safety information. it's really frustrating to put the information out and not have the supply of parts. but i can't imagine any of us si sitting here and nowing that we had vehicle safety information, holding that back, and have someone lose their life. if people have they information, they get to choose what they'd

like to do, including park their car or get a rental. one has to do with the control in timeline, that would be the manufacturer. the other is for us to think about the potential delay in providing information, which clearly we'd rather do as soon as we have it. >> thank you. it's clear the ability to move quickly in situations in which a vehicle defect poses a series public safety risk, even the life of someone, is essential, but nhtsa has no authority to take emergency action. that's why in the legislation mr. pallone and i have introduced the vehicle safety improvement act includes imminent hazard authority, which gives the administration the ability to step in and issue a recall in cases where defects substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death. so how would this imminent hazard authority be helpful to nhtsa in carrying out its mission to reduce deaths,

injuries, and economic loss resulting from motor vehicle crashes? >> thank you, congressman, for identifying. we don't want to go from withholding information. we think we need to be in the other direction, which is what you have talked about. that authority, which others already have, is not available currently to nhtsa. >> some of my colleagues have noted today traffic deaths rose by 14% in the first six months of 2015. injuries have risen by 30% since 2013. i'm concerned this draft bill would put more strain on nhtsa without actually improving safety. according to one estimate, the number of vehicles on u.s. roads grew by nearly 4 million vehicles from 2013 to 2014. meanwhile nhtsa's budget has remained relatively flat over

the past few years. appropriations for fiscal year 2016 continue that trend. coming in more than $70 million short of nhtsa's request. do you believe that stagnant funding for nhtsa has made it harder for the administration to do its job of keeping unsafe vehicles off the road? >> there's no question. last time i appeared before you i made the comment give us more resources, we'll give you more safety. the equation is very straightforward. if you give us more requirements at the same resources, you will get less safety. >> this draft calls on nhtsa to conduct at least eight new reports and studies without providing any additional funding. would you expect that additional reports and studies to require a diversion of resources from other nhtsa programs? >> absolutely. we need the technical and other resources to produce these kinds of reports. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentlelady.

chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, mr. lance, for five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you both. the state and motor vehicle agency in new jersey has contacted me, and i think this is a concern of various state agencies. there is a section directing motor vehicle agencies to notify drivers of open recalls on their vehicles when they are renewing registration and in new jersey that's once a year and i presume that's true in other states as well. and there is some concern at the state level that this would put an undue burden on the various states. i understand the benefit of increasing notification and remedy recall rates, but i do share some of the concerns of the agency in new jersey.

could you please, dr. rosekind, comment on the feasibility of your agency's coordinating with state agencies to ensure they are able to have the information necessary to inform drivers of recalls? >> congressman you just used the word, which is feasibility. nhtsa held a retooli ining reca event. how do we get remedies? you've hit on the concern. there's no technology. nobody knows the cost. nobody knows the procedures to use dmvs to get this information out. it's a great concept. they're a super touch point to get to people. the question is how to do it. for grow america, the question was for a pilot study to figure it out. >> i presume the pilot study would be with one or several of

the various jurisdictions. >> some of that is outlined in grow america. it involves two states. just the things that i mentioned, which is we need to figure out the technology, what would be the procedures, what would be the cost. you do a pilot in a couple studies. obviously with your view to how you would scale it for the whole country. >> is it typical in the states that vehicle registration is once a year or are there multi-year registrations in some of the states? >> i believe it's annual. if there's an exception, i can find that out for you. >> thank you very much. under the legislation, automakers would be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that other entities adhere to the automakers privacy policies. and the automakers privacy policies as applied to automakers would not be subject

to ftc jurisdiction. what about the privacy policies of other agencies that would have to adhere to the automakers privacy policies? i request any comments you might have on that. >> it appears that the safe harbor action would apply to the manufacturers. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. high-tech vehicle safety technologies are expected to save thousands of lives per year once they are in broad use. two types of v-to-v technology could prevent more than 3,000 crashes. title 5 of this bill is based on a false trade off, vehicle safety instead of environmental

safety. sections 5.02 and 5.03 would exchange credits. particularly in light of the shocking emission fraud scandal surrounding volkswagen, i'm worried that automakers will comply with environmental regulations. >> yes. two things. one is secretary fox has asked us to accelerate anything that is a new life-saving technology. the new vehicle proposed rule will get out at the end of the year. yes, i think we need to acknowledge ten manufacturers came forward and made a commitment to make automatic emergency braking standard on all of their vehicles. >> the proposed rule you mentioned would require all manufacturers to make all their

vehicles v-to-v enabled? >> correct. >> and that you said by the end of the year? >> the proposal would be out by the end of the year. >> are there other incentives such as revising end cap that you're considering to get these technologies deployed to all cars and not just the luxury cars? >> there are three tools. we like to use all of them. rule making is one. end cap is under review right now. more to talk about that in the near future, but ali'm also highlighting these ten auto manufacturers to do this on their own. these are three different tools. i really have been pushing collaboration and the opportunity to expedite and expand safety beyond the minimums we get from rule making. >> again, v-to-v be installed on every new vehicle is already in

the pipeline. you said the insurance institute for highway safety requires the vehicle to be equipped with certain safety technologies? >> that's correct. >> then you said you worked with iihs to get certain commitments on technologies from manufacturers. >> correct. in january, we announced that automatic emergency braking is being added to end cap and there are further changes that are coming soon. >> okay. i think most consumers would like to have a car that is both fuel efficient and safe. i mean, that makes sense. do you support giving automakers credits for installing automotive technologies? >> i think the general principles that i stated are pretty important here. the american public expects both safety and public health. and the second part is i really hope that the manufacturers have enough incentive for life-saving technologies. those are going to be the lives

say save and injuries they prevent. >> do you want to give me an opinion on whether you like or support this idea of giving the automakers the cafe credits because they install these advanced auto technologies? >> we don't think there should be a compromise. you should be able to get safety and public health and environmental concerns addressed. i think the incentives are already there. >> all right. i appreciate that. what impact would the corporate average fuel economy or cafe credit provision in this draft have on vehicle fuel economy and how might that affect consumers that buy these new cars? in other words, what impact would the cafe credit provision have on fuel economy? >> the credit? >> yeah. >> i'm not sure it would change

the actual -- the levels of what are actually covered under fuel efficiency. it's more of the incentivizing that's part of that proposal. >> so do you want to venture a guess as to how it would affect consumers that buy these new cars? >> these are very good questions, but i'd like to get a little more detailed before taking a position on it. >> thanks. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. did nhtsa or the department of transportation participate in the development of the cybersecurity framework and will it participate in future iterations of that framework? >> we have ongoing interactions

with all kinds of government agencies. we are always involved pretty much in participating as well as having them participate in our activities. >> are there ways nhtsa could participate to develop best practices for automotive cybersecurity? >> yes. in fact, if you look at the model of having the ten manufacturers come together to work on aeb as standard, it is a model to be applied across all kinds of issues, including cybe. everybody has already read the secretary is planning on having a meeting with the ceos about the safety concerns we've been reading about. he has specifically identified safety and cybersecurity to talk to the ceos about it. >> the other question, nhtsa and the auto industry spoke about how to apply the framework to the development of automotive security? >> the discussions have begun. >> ms. mithal, what standard if

auto manufacturers tested the security of cars appropriately before putting them on the market? >> sure. our standard is section 5 of the act which prohibited deceptive practices. if a company makes a misrepresentation, we can take action. an unfair practice is one that causes or is likely to cause consumer injury, not outweighed by the benefits to competition and not reasonably avoidable by consumers. it's a cost benefit analysis. there's no such thing as perfect security, but what we require is reasonable security. >> thank you. in your testimony, you discussed the ftc's start with security. quote, a business initiative. can you discuss how that should be applied to car companies and others involved in the connected car space? >> sure. i can give a couple of examples. one example we give in the security business guidance is companies should test products before they launch them. opposed to launching the products first and seeing about problems later. something we call security by

design. another thing we talk about in our start with security guidance is having a vehicle to accept vulnerability reports. companies can know of security research that's out there and evolving threats and emerging issues in their devices. >> thank you. >> including cars. >> appreciate it. that's all i have, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. five minutes. >> thank you very much to the panel and the chairman. i want to thank the chairman for calling the hearing. many of the cars contain navigation and event data recording systems, among others, that all have the ability to record driving history information. auto manufacturers, other third parties l aly ies also have acc wealth of information. it's concerning to me, candidly, and i'm sure it concerns a number of other consumers, as well. people want to know their data is safe and being kept private,

at least when it is being used with their consent. dr. rosekind, i was hoping that you might be able to start the discussion. data privacy provision in this discussion draft would require car companies submit privacy policies to nhtsa, but it does not give nhtsa any change for acceptable policies. is that how you read it, as well? >> yes. >> do you think consumers could be or should be concerned that there's no ability for nhtsa to recommend any changes? >> i think the public expects and wants nhtsa both to regulate and set guidelines for the standards that protect them, the traveling public. >> ms. mithal? >> yes. i think there are concerns that, although the bill prescribes requirements to be placed in privacy policies, it may not require companies to follow them, or may not have

enforcement mechanisms. >> it's my understanding under the draft bill, the auto maker will receive protection from civil penalties and enforcements by providing nhtsa with the privacy policy that addresses the items in the draft. such as whether or not the auto maker collects, uses or shares data, and if the consumer has any choice of the use or collection. it will not matter how a given company chooses to address the items though. as i read section 301, a car maker can hypothetically submit a privacy policy to nhtsa, violate the policy and still be protected from enforcement. a car maker can make promises to consumers about collecting the data and suffer no consequences under the act if they break that. ms. mithal, is that your understanding of how this system is set up under the draft legislation? >> that is our understanding, and it's a concern. >> do you think the bill provides sufficient senses for the auto makers to adhere to the

provisions for consumers? >> unfortunately, no. >> if we have a situation where a car company claims to have expansive privacy policies to product consumer data andpolici that a deceptive practice? >> yes. it would strip the authority. >> thank you. i have additional questions about the anti-hacking provision, which would create a civil penalty from gaining authorized access to the data in the system. we'd like to prevent bad actors from accessing the car systems, some observers expressed conc n concerns about penalizing the white house hackers to draw attention to the hackers. these have been covering volkswagen and controlling a jeep remotely via an internet. we heard from repair shops that

they think they could be precluded from accessing important information they needed to repair cars. they suggest non-auto dealers repair up to 80% cars that are still not under warrant. ms. mithal, do you have any thoughts on the provision, from your expertise in reviewing data security cases? could you envision a scenario where information could be siloed so repair shops could get information to repair cars but not fiddle with, say, emergency brakes? >> let me be clear. we agree that there should be civil penalties for malicious hackers, but we are concerned this bill would disincentivized security researchers who contact companies, suggest they fix the vulnerabilities, and companies fix that to help consumers. we believe the bill would create an impediment to that. on the auto repairs, i have deference on that issue.

>> you mention third-degreeed t bit. can you talk about the importance of the researchers to the data security work? >> it's very important. it's the white hat hackers and researchers bringing these problems to the attention of both the car manufacturers and regulators like the ftc. >> do you have any idea how to make that distinction, between white hat and black hat? >> it will require careful drafting and we look forward to working with the subcommittee on that. >> yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the lady from tennessee, ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's stay with the regulation issue. one of our concerns is dual regulation. as you all may or may not be aware, we have kind of grappled with this. ms. mithal, i know that you are with privacy in the internet space with the fcc, trying to get in on top of the ftc jurisdiction. that has caused a tremendous

amount of confusion. let me go where mr. kennedy was, and let's talk about the way you've got a manufacture that can get the safe harbor, and then a void that section 5 enforcement, if the manufacturer is meeting those requirements that are listed. now, nhtsa already handles the issue of privacy and auto motive space. what we want to do is avoid this confusion and this dual regulation. so is the ftc going to honor the recognition that nhtsa has this lead, and are they going to honor the safe harbor provision and act in good faith when they are reviewing these manufacturer's privacy policies

and making certain that they meet those requirements? >> so if i could make two points in response to your question? >> sure. >> first, concern is that the safe harbor is too broad in many respects. one example is the privacy policy requirements only apply to vehicle data collected from owners, renters or lessees. for example, if a manufacturer makes a misrepresentation on a website, that applies to shoppers about how they're collecting shoppers data, that wouldn't be covered by the privacy policy, but the ftc couldn't bring action. we have concerns about the breadth of the safe harbor. we work very well with nhtsa. we support the goal of avoiding overlapping and duplicative requirements. at the same time, nhtsa and the ftc have different focuses. for example, nhtsa does recalls and is very -- we defer to their expertise in car safety issues. at the same time, we have the ability to get exwquitable reli

in the form of, for example, implementing a security program, getting outside audits, in some cases, redress. we think that both agencies bring particular expertise and can bring different remedies to the issues. >> you are committed to making certain that we draw the lines here so we don't end up with a dual regulation or with confusion? >> exactly. >> you all have born the brunt of this, if you will. >> that's exactly right. >> consumers have been confused about the reach of the fcc and the ftc and is it diminishing your jurisdiction. as we look at this issue, and knowing cars are going to be more inter connected, not less, more computerized, not less, you're going to have more data and people will say, what are you doing with the data? how do you turn that into usable information? this is something that should be cleaned up and handled

appropriately on the front end. administrator rosekind, i want to go to you. how is nhtsa addressing the data collection practices of auto makers and others in the automotive space? what form of guidance are you currently giving? have you laid that out, and what do you intend to do? because we all know you can't be technology specific, if you will. you're going to have to umbrella this. speak for just a moment before we run out of time. speak to that. >> i can just very quickly tell you, some of those are already clearly outlined. things like the electronic data recorders that exist. there are privacy concerns there. they, for example, don't collect anything about the drivers. those already have fairly clear -- it's more communications issue. i think what we're now talking about is a lot of new areas that we are just understanding. because our cars are computers. you've highlighted something important. it's going to require increased

collaboration between our agenesis for us to be able to apply our expertise, so we make sure we protect people. when there are malicious attempts to go after the data, we have ways to keep people protected. >> i appreciate that. we know that the data collection practices from the auto makers and others in the industry can be used to provide some increased safety protocols. i think consumers are interested in that, but they want to guard their privacy, and they want to make certain that the data that is there is useful information. it is utilized in an appropriate way. yield back. >> the lady yields mback. chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, for five minutes. >> i've been watching you intermittently on television, both of you look good on