A Busy Year for NHTSA Enforcement and Rulemaking

18 September 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

This promises to be one of NHTSA’s busiest years for enforcement and rulemaking activity. NHTSA is expected to continue its aggressive enforcement, sparked by GM’s massive ignition switch recall and the flood of follow-on recalls by GM and other manufacturers. And the agency is moving forward with research and possible rulemaking on advanced crash avoidance technologies, driver distraction, and autonomous vehicles, and with implementing enhancements to its recall processes. To reduce their compliance risks, and to prepare themselves and their products to meet these new regulatory developments, Foley clients that manufacture vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are urged to revisit their safety compliance policies and procedures and to implement regulatory monitoring programs.

Aggressive Enforcement

We expect NHTSA to continue its aggressive enforcement, with a particular emphasis on recall timeliness. Manufacturers should take note that NHTSA has asserted the maximum penalty against manufacturers at least six times since 2010, most recently in May, when GM agreed to pay the new statutory maximum of $35 million for delays in conducting the now-infamous ignition switch recall. This level of enforcement is unprecedented in NHTSA’s history. A significant new concern for manufacturers is the potential for criminal liability, as recently seen in the recent Toyota deferred prosecution agreement, which included a $1.2 billion penalty. And the industry may face new enforcement regulations and even higher penalties as a result of Congressional response to the GM ignition switch investigation and hearings. In light of these risks, it is critical that manufacturers adopt compliance policies that provide the necessary internal guidance for identifying, investigating, and reporting safety defects.

Crash Avoidance Technologies and Autonomous Vehicles

NHTSA has been carefully studying the safety benefits of various warning technologies, such as blind spot detection and advanced lighting; intervention technologies, such as lane departure prevention, crash imminent braking (CIB), and dynamic brake support (DBS); and automatic pedestrian detection and braking. It has also been studying vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications as a way to improve the effectiveness of these systems. The agency will decide next steps after analyzing research data, and if the safety benefits appear to outweigh the costs, it could soon propose requiring these systems in vehicles. The agency is also continuing to devote substantial resources to autonomous vehicle research.

Driver Distraction Guidelines

Last year, NHTSA adopted federal guidelines to address driver distraction from in-vehicle electronics. Those guidelines apply to original equipment in-vehicle electronic devices used by drivers to perform secondary tasks (such as communications, entertainment, and navigation) through visual-manual means. The agency is now considering similar guidelines for portable and aftermarket devices. While “voluntary,” these “driver distraction” guidelines will significantly influence the design and performance of such devices in future model years.

Recall Improvements

In response to Congressional mandates and the agency’s own internal review, NHTSA is rolling out significant enhancements to its recall processes this year in the pursuit of higher recall completion rates, which have historically hovered around 70 percent. These enhancements include a new VIN-based recall lookup system for consumers and new requirements governing recall communications.

A version of this article originally appeared in Automotive World, view it here.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services