SAE Government/Industry Meeting

AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

William (Chernicoff), thank you for that warm welcome. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m honored to be here with you today. SAE is an incredibly important organization for advancing motor vehicle safety, and the Government/Industry meeting provides a unique opportunity for technical teams from industry and the Federal Government to exchange views and ideas. This is always one of my favorite events of the year. It’s wonderful to see this room so full, and I appreciate your interest in vehicle safety and all the good work underway at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I was in Michigan last week for the North American International Auto Show, and I was in Las Vegas for CES the week before. I’ve got to say, it’s been a minute since I’ve seen so much excitement about the future of the auto industry. At CES, I was delighted to visit with cutting edge suppliers on the technology they are developing for the next generation of vehicles, and with automated vehicle developers continually improving their performance. In Detroit, I met with researchers and automakers showing off their latest models and features — even got to see the new F1 car from Cadillac.

As some of you may know, this is my second tour at NHTSA, having served as Chief Counsel under the first Trump Administration. I wanted to return because I believe so strongly in our safety mission, and because I believe this is one of the most critical times in the history of the automotive ecosystem. Our work touches every person in this country every day because personal transportation is an essential part of our way of life and our economy.

The numbers really tell the story of the importance of our safety mission: Every year, our country sees approximately six million police-reported crashes, millions of serious injuries, and tens of thousands of fatalities. We’re combatting a recent spike in fatalities coming from the pandemic, where fatalities jumped from 36,000 in 2019 to more than 43,000 in 2021. Fatalities have been gradually decreasing since then, with that decline steepening last year. We’re projecting a 6.4% decrease in the first nine months of the year, and we’re optimistic for what the full-year numbers will show.

But let’s not sugarcoat it: nearly 40,000 people are killed on our roads each year, and that’s unacceptable. We’re using every tool in our toolbox to save lives.

We’re taking a close look at all our programs and investing in areas where we can make the greatest safety gains. We’ve created and are implementing a robust behavioral safety plan to help tackle the frustratingly constant behavioral issues that lead to so many crashes—belt use, impairment from drugs and alcohol, speeding, and distraction—and renewing and deepening our relationship with traffic law enforcement who put their lives on the line to help keep our roads safe.

We’re examining existing programs and standards to see what needs to be streamlined and modernized to better reflect the current state of the industry. We are also looking ahead to the future of automotive technology to ensure that we’re keeping pace with the next generation of vehicles. I tell the team all the time: everything we see in the most cutting-edge vehicles of today has been in development for at least seven years. We need to know what’s coming in the next seven years.

Data and evidence drive all our decisions, informed in part by our world-class research.

Safety remains paramount, and one area where we can improve safety is by examining the state of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We feel that the best way to regulate the industry is through smart regulation — that is, establishing performance targets that enhance vehicle safety without locking in particular technological pathways to achieving those targets.

Indeed, that is how the Vehicle Safety Act is designed to work. It requires NHTSA to establish standards for motor vehicle performance that meet the need for safety and are objective, practicable, and supported by specific, replicable, test procedures.
That said, many Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards intended to be technology neutral were created in the context of the existing technologies at the time they were promulgated.

Now, decades later, some of these standards have become riddled with requirements that create unintended and unnecessary barriers to new technologies or designs — often entirely unrelated to the underlying safety goals of the standards.

I call such requirements “vestigial regulations” — similar to vestigial organs we learned about in anatomy classes, such as the appendix or wisdom teeth, that no longer serve any real functions, but can create real harm. And these vestigial regulations have a tendency to ossify and affect industry in unforeseen ways. They can have a cascading effect over time.

They become baked into the underlying notion of what it means to design a vehicle, just another box to check. And every time that box is checked, developers lose another opportunity to innovate or design new ways to meet and exceed safety requirements more efficiently and effectively if a manufacturer so chooses.

An example I like to use is FMVSS No. 108 for vehicle lighting, which establishes performance requirements that must be met when applying 12.8 volts direct current to the terminals. While this was no doubt drafted to provide appropriate testing specificity, it has the effect of boxing out alternative, then-unforeseen, technologies —and limiting design creativity.

If a manufacturer were to consider implementing a 48-volt architecture, for instance, they’d need to install a DC/DC step down converter, taking up space and adding mass, cost, complexity, and risk of failure, with no corresponding benefits. You don’t improve lighting or driving safety by regulating the thickness of a wiring harness. While these are not the hurdles we hear about when we talk to trade groups, we need to hear from you — and this is precisely the right group of folks to talk to.

This morning, I signed a Request for Comment seeking public input to help identify similar regulatory provisions. This will be published in the Federal Register soon. We’re looking for areas of FMVSS that add unnecessary cost and complexity but do nothing to improve actual safety. And we’re especially interested in identifying those aspects of a regulation that actually impede the ability to enhance safety.
Those of you who have sat in product or industrial design meetings and had to blush when telling people why you couldn’t do something—you know who you are—I’m speaking to you and look forward to hearing your comments.

Ultimately, updating an FMVSS — vestigial or otherwise — will require a rulemaking.

From research to drafting and proposing a regulation, to receiving comment and potentially changing the rule – the process takes seven years, on average.

However, there are ways we can speed that up and make it simpler and faster. If we’re eliminating non-controversial vestigial regulations with no safety benefit, and we can demonstrate that fact, we can speed up the gears of government.

We’ve already proposed trimming unnecessary text from 16 rules as part of USDOT’s first “Deregulatory Sprint” in May.

It’s important that we get any rulemaking and changes to an FMVSS right, and some are more challenging than others. But we don’t have a lot of time to get things done, so we’re looking at the various tools we may deploy to help move that process along. One of those tools is negotiated rulemaking.

You may not be familiar with the term, because it’s not used terribly often in this space. In fact, I don’t know that NHTSA has ever used the process. But Congress gave agencies power to use negotiated rulemaking back in 1990 to develop proposed rules. In a negotiated rulemaking, an agency brings together a committee of stakeholders to develop a consensus on a proposed rule for public comment. If successful, this ensures buy-in from stakeholders, which can mean an easier implementation of proposed changes and a better focused target.

NHTSA has rarely used this tool, but I want to explore it. We are considering using negotiated rulemaking as an option moving forward to modernize standards while prioritizing safety.  Two specific areas for consideration: our regulations for lighting and tires. These are highly technical, complicated, and outdated areas for automotive regulation, and a negotiated rulemaking pathway could prove effective. Watch this space.  
Modernizing also means examining our FMVSSs through the lens of an ever-evolving automotive industry.

When most of these FMVSSs were written, the NHTSA staff of the 1970s and 80s couldn’t imagine a day when you’d have a vehicle without a steering wheel or pedals. The only rear-facing seating available was the third row of your mom’s station wagon. They were written for the automobile as we knew it, not necessarily the novel vehicle of today or tomorrow.

Technical performance requirements were drafted around the assumption of a human driver — think braking performance requirements that require manual foot controls and tests for performance when a certain amount of force is applied to the brake pedal.

This means the technologies of the future find themselves subject to regulations of the past, which still apply, unless granted an exemption. And while NHTSA does have limited authorities to grant exemptions for new technologies, reliance upon the largess of a regulator does not make for a great business model.

But this is an administration that is looking to enable innovation while performing robust safety oversight — this is the way the Vehicle Safety Act is designed to operate.

We’re looking to support innovation because automated driving systems hold incredible promise for the future, unlocking mobility options for senior citizens, people with disabilities, and others who are unable to drive for a variety of reasons. This technology has the potential to enable full participation in our society and economy for the many left behind due to an inability to drive.

Access to transportation is access to freedom.

AVs could help reverse the fatality crisis on our roads. Several risky and unacceptably common driving behaviors like speeding or driving distracted, fatigued, drunk or high play a role in tens of thousands of deaths every year.

AVs could potentially eliminate so many of these dangerous behaviors. AVs will never drive impaired, tired or distracted—and they shouldn’t speed through school or work zones — if they do, they should be subject to traffic enforcement. And you don’t need to worry about them having road rage.

But let’s be real: The development of an automated driving system is one of, if not the, most challenging engineering problems humanity has ever attempted. And it’s safety critical. Think of the infinite possible challenges presented by what happens on our roads, and how the human mind is able to adapt to solve those challenges in real time when they are attentive.

Automated driving systems have to be programmed to handle each such challenge, requiring an incredible amount of data for training, sensor inputs for operations, and an enormous amount of computing power to process it all, in less than a blink of an eye.

So as developers test their platforms and software on public roads, we see odd and annoying behaviors such as vehicles stopping in lanes for long periods of time. We sometimes see unsafe behaviors requiring NHTSA to use our enforcement authority. We’ve launched a number of defect investigations into AV developers and have pushed for and overseen several recalls.

We’re not going to be shy when we see something that we believe presents a risk to the public. But the promise of this technology to society is far too great to ignore, or worse, discourage or prohibit.

So where do AVs stand under the U.S. regulatory system? Under current regulation, we don’t have standards for automated driving system competency—meaning that vehicles meeting all applicable FMVSS can be deployed on public roads.

But that doesn’t mean AVs are unregulated — quite the contrary.

NHTSA's broad defect authority requires the recall of vehicle technologies — including automated driving systems — posing an unreasonable risk to safety. So we monitor performance through reports of crashes or other unsafe behaviors.

And while an AV that meets all applicable FMVSS can operate on public roads, automated driving systems present design opportunities that were not anticipated when these standards were developed decades ago, and seldom updated since, given the challenges of the regulatory process.
During President Trump’s first term, we were quite active in the AV space. We issued three sets of guidance documents, first from NHTSA’s perspective, primarily directed to AV developers, highlighting critical safety areas of focus for industry and providing a pathway to educate the public on how individual companies are addressing each area. The document also provided NHTSA’s perspective on the appropriate roles of state and local government in overseeing AV safety.

The next, from the perspective of each individual DOT modal administration, discussed policy issues not only related to automated motor vehicles, but drones, and automated vessels as well. Lastly, the administration issued a whole of government guidance document.

Now, we have been directed by President Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to develop and implement a new federal AV framework to provide a pathway to the development and deployment of innovative technologies in a way that provides rigorous safety oversight. We fundamentally reject the notion that these are mutually exclusive objectives.

The new framework will unleash American ingenuity, maintain key safety standards, and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety based on three core principles:

• First, prioritize the safety of ongoing AV operations on public roads.
• Second, unleash innovation by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the safe development of the technology.
• Third, enable the commercial deployment of AVs to enhance safety and mobility for the American public. To be clear, this includes the commercial deployment of purpose-built AVs without traditional controls such as steering wheels or brake pedals.

We’ve already made significant strides in delivering on these priorities.

• We streamlined our reporting process for AV crashes to collect essential information while making compliance simpler.
• We announced an expanded exemption program for the research and development of AVs and importantly put U.S. developers of this technology on a level playing field with foreign competitors; previously this authority only allowed imported vehicles access to public roads.
• We streamlined our exemption program for AV deployments that will facilitate faster determinations of applications.
• We hosted an in-person workshop at DOT headquarters where we facilitated a collaborative discussion with industry on many pressing AV policy issues.
• On the regulatory front, we launched the process of identifying and addressing barriers to designs enabled by automated driving systems. This started in earnest in 2018, when we kicked off research in collaboration with industry and vehicle safety experts to not only identify the ways FMVSS may inhibit novel designs, but also to provide options to translate the requirements to apply to new designs in a way that does not adversely affect safety.
• Just last month, NHTSA released the fourth and final volume of that effort, which addressed 81 standards and their test procedures. Our docket for comment is open through February 13, if you’d like to share your thoughts with us.
• Importantly, we also used our convening authority to bring together states, local governments and tribal nations to share what we’re all doing and allow them to share their own best practices. While the previous administration wasn’t as active in the AV space, focusing on enforcement against AV developers and safety research, I think you’ve already seen this administration return to AV policy in a major way.  
• As some of you know, I’m a true believer that a collaborative process will yield superior results. We’re considering various opportunities to utilize our convening powers to bring stakeholders together to share their thoughts and experiences on how best to assure safety in this space, as we encourage innovation.

Finally, we’ll also be rolling out guidance for our exemption program that allows for commercial deployment of AVs, which will fill out the program changes announced last year.

Looking ahead, we’re exploring updates to NHTSA’s guidance documents to help the AV industry, state and local governments, tribal nations, safety and mobility advocates, and the public in general as the United States continues to lead the way toward the safe deployment of automated vehicles. These updates would address key aspects of AV development and deployment that have emerged since the agency last published guidance for industry during the first Trump administration. Think safety cases, and safety management systems, which can have an enormous benefit to safety, and the manner in which developers use remote assistance when faced with unexpected or challenging circumstances.

But this is going to require a great deal of stakeholder input, and we want to be collaborative and hear from all comers. We are planning to open a docket for public comment as the first step in the process. Please stay tuned for more on that.

Importantly, though, we can’t lose sight of the criticality of safety assurance in this space. During the first Trump administration, we issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to discuss establishment of a framework for automated driving system safety. At the time, we sought comment on any combination of guidance, best practices, and regulation. We expressed concern that the infinite scenarios encountered driving every day potentially make establishment of objective and practicable performance standards that meet the need for motor vehicle safety —FMVSS — impossible.

Since then, however, the technology, and the understanding of the technology, has progressed. We’re now looking at approaches to providing safety assurance through regulation. We’re not the only ones. In fact, as many of you may be aware, United Nations WP.29 has developed a draft Global Technical Regulation for automated driving systems, which may be subject to a vote later this year. I signed a Request for Comment document this morning, to be published in the Federal Register soon, to gain stakeholder input on this draft. I look forward to hearing from you on this important topic.

Beyond AVs, we’re looking at ways our regulations may lead to artificial distortions to the vehicle design process. In our recent proposal to amend our fuel economy standards, for instance, we’re proposing to adjust the criteria for vehicle classification. Once we looked at it, we could see that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program was incentivizing automakers to add artificial design elements to achieve a favorable classification.
There’s a reason why so many small crossovers look so similar.

This is true in the safety regulatory space as well, where regulatory minutiae wholly unrelated to a standard’s safety goals force design decisions that limit innovative ways to meet performance requirements more efficiently, or worse, that block pathways to greater safety.
We want to liberate automotive designers to build a new generation of safer vehicles based on creative designs and novel approaches that better meet consumers’ preferences rather than complying with a never-ending list of check-the-box requirements.

And we want those newer, safer vehicles to be affordable for American families. But sadly, new vehicles are out of the reach of many Americans.
In September, Kelley Blue Book reported that the average transaction price of a new vehicle in the U.S. eclipsed $50,000. At the same time, the average age of a vehicle in the United States is 13 years old.

It’s not a coincidence that people are holding onto cars longer as they become less affordable. But that 13-year-old vehicle is not going to be as safe as a model year 2026 vehicle with all the advanced safety features. If we’re to help save lives and bring down that number of 40,000 deaths a year, we have to help more people afford safer vehicles.

This is one of the President’s top priorities, and Secretary Duffy has made it clear since his confirmation hearing when he spoke at length about it.
Last month, we proposed a major overhaul of fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles model years 2022-2031, returning the program to conformance with statutory restrictions. Our proposal would result in gradual improvements to fuel economy while lowering new car costs by around $1,000, saving the American economy $109 billion over the next five years, and eliminating incentives that have a distorting effect on vehicle designs to meet less stringent targets.

We believe this unshackling will result in the safest, smartest, most innovative new vehicles in history, at a crucial time in history when our nation is in a tight race to maintain its technological edge.

Another way we can help save lives is by ensuring that new vehicles are designed with the safety of everyone in mind, including women.
We just released research showing that women are at higher risk of injury than men during vehicular crashes. According to the study, women have a statistically significant higher risk of injury than men in 26% of the 150 crash injury models, and women have a higher risk more frequently for moderate injuries.

Women’s bodies react differently in a crash than men’s bodies, and our crash test dummies should account for these differences to enable design vehicles that protect both sexes equally. Our crash test dummies have served as great tools to identify crash force impacts on mid-size (50M) and small (5F) humans, but have not reflected physiological differences between men and women.

All that’s changing as technology and research enable a better understanding of these differences. In November, we released design specifications for the first-ever advanced female crash test dummy. It’s called the THOR 5th percentile anthropomorphic test device, and it’s going to change the game for safety. With these design specifications, automakers can start purchasing the dummy and using it in tests with confidence that industry, researchers, and regulators are using the same tool. This will allow us all to learn more about how it will perform before NHTSA formally adopts it for use in ratings and rulemakings.

THOR dummies are dramatically more advanced than previous dummies. Their bodies have much more humanlike responses to crash forces. They’ll also be able to collect far more information than we’ve ever had before. More than 150 high-tech sensors will enable significantly more measurements that will translate to injury risk values and allow manufacturers to design vehicles that better protect women occupants.

We’re very excited about what this new dummy will do to improve safety and provide us a wealth of new information. I know that future vehicles will be safer thanks to NHTSA’s work to deliver the most advanced female crash test dummy ever.

So, to wrap up: We want to have the safest vehicles possible available for American families at an affordable price. We want to help facilitate the next generation of vehicles and vehicle technologies, including automation. We’re looking at all our regulations to ensure they’re actually delivering on safety instead of checking boxes. And we’re doing all of this through the lens of safety, mindful that the well-being of every American who drives, walks, bikes or rides depends on our work.

I’ll close with a challenge: We want to hear from you. You are technical experts with detailed knowledge that we can benefit from. Your insights, research, and real-world experience can be invaluable as we move forward. We don’t want to just see you once a year at this meeting – we want to keep this conversation going all year round.

So please, reach out to our experts. Send us your thoughts during public comment periods. Attend our workshops and webinars. We aren’t working in a silo – we’re opening the doors to all our stakeholders and experts, and we want to learn from you as much as you learn from us.

Together we can save lives.

Thank you very much for your time today. I hope you’ll enjoy the rest of the meeting, and please have a safe trip home.