Land Mines Lurk as Senate Considers its Version of Self-Drive Act

Aftermarket Business - October 25, 2017 for the original article go HERE.

Though the House passed the Self-Drive Act by a voice vote, reflecting Democratic and Republican unanimity on the importance of autonomous vehicles (AVs), no one should think that autonomous vehicle legislation is a done deal. All sorts of groups indicated they want changes to the House bill, and are hoping for the Senate to do just that. The Senate held a hearing on truck AVs a week after the House passed its bill on September 6.

The statement issued by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) on Sept. 6 illustrates the mixed feelings the nation's auto lobby has about the bill."We are continuing to work to improve this legislative package and are eager to review what the Senate is expected to introduce next week on the heels of tomorrow's updated federal AV guidance," says Daniel Gage, spokesman for the AAM. "Clarity, consistency, and the removal of unnecessary barriers to expanded testing and deployment of these technologies are key."

Any legislation passed by Congress would trump the revised non-binding AV policy guidance Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced on September 12. The new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidance doesn't require manufacturers to submit any safety information to the agency, nor did its first iteration published in the fall of 2016.

The Self-Drive Act does require submission of safety assessment letters, and further requires the agency to submit a rulemaking plan to Congress within one year and to issue the first rule, presumably with new, enforceable AV-related standards, within 18 months, with other rules to follow, though the bill conditions all of that on an "as necessary" clause. The first step, however, as soon as the bill passes, would be a requirement to submit safety assessment letters to the NHTSA on level 4 and 5 AVs that a manufacturer or parts supplier wants to test and deploy. Within two years after the bill's passage, the NHTSA would have to publish a rule laying out a "a clear description of the relevant test results, data, and other contents required to be submitted by such entity, in order to demonstrate that such entity’s vehicles are likely to maintain safety, and function as intended and contain fail safe features, to be included in such certifications." NHTSA cannot condition approval of deployment on those submissions, however.

Part of what appears to be the cautionary stance of manufacturers about the House version of the Self-Drive Act has to do with the safety assessment letters, which in the first year would be based on the 12 safety principles in the NHTSA voluntary guidance revised by Chao in September. In May of 2016, in response to a draft of the first iteration of the NHTSA AV guidance, Wayne Bahr, Global Director, Automotive Safety Office, Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co., sent a letter to the NHTSA opposing NHTSA review of Ford's self validation of functional safety processes because Ford didn't think that review "would provide the intended confirmation, and is likely to create feasibility concerns." Bahr did not respond to an e-mail asking whether Ford's position has changed.

Consumer groups have been skeptical of some portions of the Self-Drive Act. For example, on the day the House voted, the Consumers Union released a letter which started out by saying: "While several portions of the Self-Drive Act would benefit consumer safety, we are very concerned about other provisions in the bill that would change federal law in ways that would open regulatory gaps and fail to adequately protect consumers from vehicle safety hazards." The CU went on to argue that exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards should only be granted "if backed by evidence that a new feature maintains and enhances safety."

There is one overlooked provision in the bill that has nothing to do with AVs and could have a big impact on aftermarket shelves. NHTSA would have to research the need for a revised standard "that would improve the performance of headlamps and improve overall safety" and propose a new standard if necessary. This mysterious provision never came up in House hearings, or on the House floor. One wonders on whose behalf it was inserted. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has issued reports in the past year faulting the performance of passenger and SUV headlights.

Author bio: 

Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

NTSB Considers Tire Registration Changes

Aftermarket Business World - January 2015 - for the original online version of this article go HERE.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has picked up the issue of tire safety, and its concern could well lead to recommendations for regulatory changes affecting tire dealers.

The NTSB is investigating some 2014 tire blowout accidents that resulted in deaths, which were discussed at a meeting in Washington in early December. The meeting served as a forum for the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), which represents tire manufacturers, to push a proposal that Congress change the tire registration law to require dealers to electronically register the TIN (tire identification number) with NHTSA at the point of sale.

If Congress doesn't act, a NTSB recommendation to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) could result in a regulatory change. The NTSB will be making recommendations of some sort in the near future.

Four serious accidents in 2014 resulting from disabled tires resulted in the NTSB two-day symposium on tire safety on December 9 and 10. The accidents occurred one week apart in February, in Florida and Louisiana, and resulted in multiple deaths in both instances. The NTSB has not released reports on those accidents yet.

In one case, a poorly maintained, 10-year old tire separated at high speeds. In the second, the separated tire had been the subject of a recall a year and a half earlier. NTSB staff members at the workshop cited two additional accidents in 2014 that are not the subject of investigations.

Kevin Rohlwing, senior vice president of training for the Tire Industry Association (TIA), believes more has to be done to prevent tire separation accidents. That includes improving the NHTSA tire registration/recall process and informing consumers about the need to register tires and maintain them. And the TIA is willing to do its part. However, Rohlwing emphasizes the entire burden for improving tire safety should not be laid on the back of dealers. He opposed requiring dealers to electronically register new tires.

Moreover, Roy Littlefield, TIA executive vice president, is miffed the RMA sprang its electronic registration proposal on the TIA. "We are incredibly disappointed that RMA supports a legislative solution to the problem of low tire registration rates rather than educational," he says.  "TIA has been working with RMA on a number of legislative issues like tire repair and used tires over the past few years, but there have been no discussions related to mandatory tire registration. We had talked about working together to educate and improve voluntary numbers, so it was a total shock to hear that they are proposing legislation over education."

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act was the last piece of tire safety legislation Congress passed. That was in 2000. The TREAD Act was passed because of problems with Firestone tires. The TREAD Act included directives to NHTSA to improve the endurance and resistance standards for tires, to improve the information labels on tires, and to require a warning system to indicate to drivers when a tire is significantly under inflated.

The tire registration system was established in 1970. It gives independent dealers who sell multiple brands of tires three options, all involving registration cards they are suppose to obtain from each of their manufacturers. The dealer can give the consumer the card, have them fill it out and return it to the dealer. Or the dealer can fill out the card and either mail it in, or register the information electronically with the dealer. In most instances, dealers go the first route. That has resulted in registration of no more than 20 percent of new tires, according to the RMA, a figure Rohlwing does not dispute, although the NHTSA has never sought data on that.

Tracy Norberg, general counsel and senior vice president for regulatory affairs at the RMA, points out that the return rate for tire registration cards is 100 percent by retailers in tire manufacturer-owned retail stores.

Rohlwing argues that while retailers can do better, consumer apathy is also a big part of the problem, and NHTSA could do more too, by making available lists of TINs associated with recalled tires that retailers could post in their shops, helping technicians identify recalled tires on cars which come in for service.

Author bio: 
Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.