Congress members hear from automotive industry on ADAS, safety, data bills

A U.S. House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade hearing held Tuesday explored 16 transportation-related bills that legislators said they hope will help curb the country’s more than 40,000 annual traffic fatalities.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that by working together, Congress can pass legislation to prioritize safety, accessibility, and American automotive leadership.

Bills that were discussed during the hearing included:

• • H.R. ____, Motor Vehicle Modernization Act (Chairman Guthrie)
  • H.R. ____, Safety Is Not for Sale Act of 2026 (Ranking Member Pallone)
  • H.R. ____, Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act of 2026 (Reps. Latta and Dingell)
  • H.R. 1566, Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act (Reps. Dunn and Perez)
  • H.R. 4376, AV Safety Data Act (Rep. Mullin)
  • H.R. 3360, Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act (Rep. Mullin)
  • H.R. 6687, DRIVER Act (Rep. Harshbarger)
  • H.R. 6688, ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act (Reps. Harshbarger, Obernolte, Vazquez, and Torres)
  • H.R. 6850, DRIVE to HALT Drunk Driving Act (Rep. Dingell)
  • H.R. 1137, No Kill Switches in Cars Act (Rep. Perry)
  • H.R. 3385, To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations to update the definition of motorcycle, and for other purposes. (Rep. Van Orden)
  • H.R. 5221, PART Act (Reps. Baird and McCollum)
  • H.R. 2110, Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act (Reps. Dingell and Crenshaw)
  • H.R. ____, Know Before You Drive Act (Rep. Schrier)
  • H.R. ____, Securing Accessible Functional Emergency (SAFE) Exit Act (Rep. Kelly-IL)
  • H.R. ____, Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 (Rep. Clarke)

Much of the discussion centered on data access and security, as well as vehicle passenger safety.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01) asked Hilary Cain, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation’s senior vice president for policy, and Bill Hanvey, the Auto Care Association’s president and CEO, how in-vehicle data access could impact insurance coverage for consumers.

“I envision a world where my insurance rates are increased because they get access to data that says that I exceeded the speed limit X number of times, or perform some driving behavior that was against their standards,” Fulcher said. “Or maybe a world where a rental car company refuses to rent me a car, or requires me to purchase their insurance, or gives me a higher rate because they have access to that same data. Are my fears worthy?”

Cain validated Fulcher’s fears, but explained that automakers are making efforts to ensure those fears aren’t realized, including establishing a set of privacy principles in 2014 to serve as a code of conduct for the collection and use of vehicle data.

“It’s enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission, which is something that is very important to us,” she said. “One of the restrictions that is in that code of conduct is a prohibition on sharing sensitive vehicle data with any third parties in the absence of the affirmative consent of the vehicle owner. When we talk about sensitive vehicle data, we’re talking about things like location information, driver behavior information, whichis probably something you don’t want your insurance company to have, and biometric data.”

When asked the same question, Hanvey agreed that Fulcher’s fears are justified.

“That’s why the REPAIR Act is a very limited piece of legislation that only includes vehicle repair and maintenance data,” Hanvey said. “The automakers are compiling personal data and selling that on the marketplace. But from an insurance standpoint, the REPAIR Act is not an insurance bill. It simply allows for the consumer to be able to choose where, when, and how their vehicle is being repaired.”

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has been an ongoing supporter of the REPAIR Act, and in a Jan. 13 press release announced its support for the bill, touting it as “fostering a competitive repair market.”

“Insurers are committed to ensuring that our customers receive safe, cost-effective, and high-quality vehicle repairs,” the release states. “We welcome the subcommittee’s efforts to advance information sharing and establish standards for repairing advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), which will benefit consumers and promote a competitive, transparent repair marketplace.”

During the hearing, Hanvey also said that the current version of the bill “ensures that our industry would access the data using the same cryptographic and technological protections an OEM dealer or any other third-party authorized recipient from the automakers. We’re not asking for anything more. We’re not asking for anything less. It’s using the same secure protocols that the automakers are using.”

Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. (NJ-07) questioned Hanvey and Cain regarding a constituent letter citing concerns about how the REPAIR Act would affect independent repair facilities.

“He is concerned that the REPAIR Act might ultimately prevent his customers from receiving the parts that they want,” Kean said. “Additionally, he does not believe that it will provide his company with access to any new tools.”

He asked Cain how the REPAIR Act could impact the protection of innovators’ intellectual property rights.

‘The REPAIR Act is complicated because it does two things at the same time,” she said. “The first is making sure that independent repairs have access to the data, information, and tools that they need to repair vehicles. That’s something that automakers are aligned [with] and want to achieve.

“The second thing, though, that it does is it makes data and information available to aftermarket parts manufacturers so that they can manufacture parts that compete with the parts that the automakers make. That’s where things get sticky and where intellectual property is something that we need to be thinking about right now. Automakers are investing billions of dollars every year into research and development, into new parts, new components, new technologies. I think we would all agree that that research, that development, and that intellectual property should be protected.”

Cain added that if an aftermarket parts manufacturer wants to make a part that competes with an OEM part, it’s important that they have two options: to license the intellectual property from the automaker and make an identical part or invest in their own research and development to create a compatible part that differs enough from the automaker’s part so as not to infringe on its intellectual property.

Kean also asked Cain to comment on how insufficient intellectual property protections could steer consumers toward parts that are manufactured overseas and not sufficiently tested.

“It’s a very critical point,” she said. “We’re seeing a lot of intellectual property theft and counterfeit parts coming out of China. Our fear would be that reducing the intellectual property protections in the law may encourage more of that.”

In a separate letter sent to Kean, Gerald McNee, New Jersey constituent and owner of Ultimate Collision Repair, also voiced opposition to the REPAIR Act, stating that it doesn’t provide independent auto repair shops like his “with anything we don’t already have to properly fix your vehicle.”

“What we need from policymakers is protection,” he wrote. “Not from automakers, but from a law that blurs accountability, erodes repair standards, and jeopardizes safety in the name of convenience and corporate profit.”

McNee asked for support of the SAFE Repair Act instead, stating that it addresses the real challenges facing consumers and small repair businesses like his.

“At the end of the day, our customers want one thing: their vehicle restored to pre-accident conditions using proper repair procedures, proper tools, and proper parts,” he wrote. “The SAFE Repair Act protects and preserves consumer repair choice.”

ADAS functionality and emergency response safety

Regarding the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act, Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23) said during the hearing that the bill intends to direct the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA) to develop guidelines grounded in empirical testing to ensure that when an ADAS-equipped vehicle is damaged, repair shops will be able to verify proper calibrations and functionality post-repair.

He asked Cain how the proper safety functionality of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) can be ensured following collision damage or when vehicles are modified with aftermarket parts.

“ADAS technologies are making vehicles safer, and there’s also no doubt that we need to make sure that those systems continue to be properly calibrated so they continue to work,” she said. “And you’re right, repair is an issue. Maintenance, in terms of over the life of the vehicle, you want to know that your system in year 11 is working the same as it was working in year two.”

Cain added that Auto Innovators believes NHTSA needs to convene a forum between all of the various parties, including automakers and modifiers, to discuss what a path forward looks like.

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) states in a December press release that it worked with lawmakers to secure bipartisan support for the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act to ensure aftermarket businesses have the information necessary to properly calibrate modified vehicles.

“This legislation is critical to being able to safely make common modifications, including installing bike racks, wrapping a vehicle, installing larger wheels and tires, or installing a winch or aftermarket bumpers, without compromising the functionality of ADAS,” the release states.

In relation to data collection and sharing, Harshbarger asked witness Michael Brooks, Center for Auto Safety executive director, how the lack of guaranteed vehicle data access could negatively affect state and local governments that manage fire, police, and public works fleets.

He said it prevents states from being able to track a lot of the data they need to appropriately manage their fleets.

Bilirakis asked Cain how partnerships between OEMs, firefighters, and fire rescue can help address uncontrolled battery fires while also ensuring the safety of firefighters and the general public.

“Available data shows… that EVs actually catch fire less often than gas-powered vehicles,” she said. “However, the fires in EVs burn differently than fires in gas-powered vehicles. They burn hotter. They burn longer. As a result of that, it requires new training and new firefighting techniques. We are focused on helping to disseminate that information to as many first responders as it can be disseminated to.”

Cain added that Auto Innovators has worked with the National Fire Protection Association on developing firefighting best practices and training protocols in handling EV fires.

“More needs to be done. There is no doubt that the solution to this issue is better training and more collaboration,” she said. “We welcome any and all ideas that you or anybody else on the committee has about how to foster more collaboration.”

Another safety topic brought up during the hearing that has been in the news recently, specifically related to Tesla vehicles, was retractable door handles causing emergency response delays.

The Securing Accessible Functional Emergency (SAFE) Exit Act was introduced by U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (IL-02) just weeks after Bloomberg printed an investigation that found 15 people have died in crashes where Tesla doors wouldn’t open.

The act would also require NHTSA to establish performance and labeling requirements for electric doors that include easy-to-find manual releases in the event of an emergency.

Brooks said standardization is needed across OEMs on how door handles function.

Kelly asked the witnesses what steps automakers can take to ensure the safety of vehicle passengers while driving and in the event of a collision.

Cain said Auto Innovators is working with its members to figure out what makes sense.

“As a next step, I will tell you in some of the preliminary conversations that we’ve had, we are generally open to some sort of door release redundancy in the event of a primary power loss,” she said. “While that may make sense to be a mechanical release, there also might be things like a backup power source that kicks in.”

As part of his opening remarks on the bills that were to be discussed, Brooks said the U.S. is lagging far behind other developed countries in terms of road fatality and injury rates.

“Loosening already-weak federal protections is an unacceptable solution to this failure,” he said. “To do so, while simultaneously crippling the ability of state regulators to react and respond to safety and other threats posed by unproven technologies, is unprecedented. While the auto industry is abuzz with the introduction of features to increase human convenience and access to creature comfort features, as well as highly aspirational but unproven claims about the future of automated vehicle utility and safety, automakers continue to drag their collective feet when it comes to the introduction of proven safety technology that could dramatically decrease the carnage on our nation’s roads in the immediate future.”

The MEMA Vehicle Suppliers Association voiced its support ahead of the hearing for the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act and SELF DRIVE Act.

Images

Featured image credit: cagkansayin/iStock