U.S. Legislative Issues
Auto Cybersecurity Legislation Introduced
On November 5, 2015, Representatives Ted W. Lieu (D-CA) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced the Security and Privacy in Your (SPY) Car Study Act of 2015. This legislation would require the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA) to conduct a one year study, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the Department of Defense, industry leaders and higher education institutions to recommend a framework for regulating car automotive software (e.g. diagnostic systems, navigation and entertainment systems) safety, cybersecurity and privacy regulations. "Without adequate protections, a hacker could turn a car into a weapon," Rep. Lieu said in a statement. "The SPY CAR Study Act is a first step in bringing industry, advocates and government together to strike a balance between innovation and consumer protection."
The Lieu-Wilson bill is less ambitious than similar legislation introduced last July in the Senate by Ed Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Their bill, S. 1806, or the Spy Car Act of 2015, would require the FTC and NHTSA to develop standards to protect drivers' privacy and to guard against a potentially deadly hack of a vehicle. Rep. Wilson urged a more cautious approach to vehicle cybersecurity stating, "I am proposing the SPY Car Study Act because it is irresponsible to mandate changes in a developing field before accurately assessing the situation."
NHTSA Issues Recall Remedy Order
On November 3, 2015, NHTSA released the Coordinated Remedy Order issued to Takata and the 12 vehicle manufacturers involved in the existing Takata recalls. The NHTSA Order directs Takata and the vehicle manufacturers to prioritize their remedy programs based on risk, and establishes a schedule by which they must have sufficient parts on hand to remedy the defect for all affected vehicles. The order also establishes a Coordinated Remedy Program under which the agency will oversee the supply of remedy parts and manage future recalls with the assistance of an independent third-party monitor. Following is a summary of the priority groups as outlined in the Order:
- Priority Group 1: Highest risk vehicles, generally those from model years 2008 or older that have spent time in the high absolute humidity (HAH) region and that have either a recalled driver-side inflator or both driver- and passenger-side inflators.
- Priority Group 2: Intermediate-high risk vehicles, generally including all vehicles with driver-side inflators that are not in Group 1 and vehicles with certain passenger-side inflators that have higher rupture frequency and have spent time in the high absolute humidity region. This includes, vehicles 2009 and newer, and/or vehicles with recalled driver inflators only that have not spent time in the HAH region.
- Priority Group 3: Generally, this includes the remaining vehicles, specifically, vehicles that are model year 2009 and later and either: (1) are outside the HAH region and contain only a passenger side inflator; or (2) are in the HAH region and contain a specific passenger side inflator type with a lower rupture rate than other passenger side inflator types.
- Priority Group 4: Vehicles that will require an interim remedy (a remedy inflator that may contain the same defect as the recalled inflator) because alternate parts are not available. These vehicles are fourth priority because once the vehicles have been remedied with the interim part the risk of rupture is significantly reduced in the years just after the interim remedy is installed.
Under the Coordinated Remedy Order, vehicle manufacturers must ensure they have sufficient replacements on hand to meet consumer demand for the highest-risk inflators by June 2016, and to provide final remedies for all vehicles—including those that will receive interim remedies because of supply and design issues—by the end of 2019.
House Passes Multiyear Highway Bill; Safety Advocates Push for Changes
On November 5, the House passed a largely bipartisan multiyear highway that includes roughly $325 billion in transportation funding to address the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. The House legislation must now be reconciled with the highway bill passed by the Senate earlier this year. Both bills outline six years of highway policy, but provide only three years’ worth of funding. Congressional negotiators have until November 20, 2015 to resolve differences between the bill adopted by the House and the bill that was approved by the Senate on July 30, 2015 as that is when the current highway authorization bill expires.
In anticipation of the upcoming negotiations, a group of highway safety advocates, consumer protection groups, crash victims’ families, and Members of Congress have formed an alliance to press for changes to what they are calling the "most anti-safety highway reauthorization bill" to date. The alliance, formally known as the Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety, accuses the House highway bill of "pandering to auto and trucking industries at the cost of more deaths and injuries on our streets and highways in the next six years." Following passage of the House bill, the safety group released a statement outlining its greatest sources for concern, including several amendments that did not make it into the final bill as well as language that was included and will now be taken up in negotiations with the Senate. Below is a summary of their top concerns:
- The bill’s inclusion of a provision to lower the minimum age of truck drivers from 21 to 18.
- Defeat of an amendment to advance improved National Highway Traffic Safety. Administration (NHTSA) vehicle safety databases, used car buyers guide, retention of safety records by manufacturers, elimination of regional recalls, elimination of any time restrictions to remedy safety defects in vehicles, pedestrian safety improvements and enhanced safety for rear seat occupants.
- Defeat of an amendment to require that the "safety scorecards" of trucks and buses, scores developed by the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Program, remain public while the National Academies of Sciences study the CSA Program.
- Defeat of an amendment which would have allowed the U.S. Department of Transportation to proceed with a public rulemaking currently underway regarding minimum financial responsibility for truck and bus companies.
- Passage of an amendment which exempts from safety standards up to 500 replica vehicles and vehicles used for testing/evaluation; shields auto manufacturers in civil litigation from failure to comply with NHTSA guidelines; and cuts funding for NHTSA from the level supported by the Obama Administration.
- Passage of several truck size and weight exemption amendments that the alliance argues would allow for dangerous overweight trucks on specific roads for lumber interests and for certain highway segments.
- Passage of an amendment the safety group claims restricts rest breaks for truck drivers required under state law and contributes to driver fatigue by reducing the off-duty rest time of truck drivers.
