HR-7389-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 1.
Sponsored by Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
What it does
This bill would update the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) motor vehicle safety programs in several ways. It would require NHTSA to publish a rolling 36-month rulemaking and research priority plan, restructure the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) under a new dedicated office with an advisory committee, and mandate periodic reviews of existing safety standards. It would also modernize recall notification procedures to allow electronic communication, expand eligibility for safety standard exemptions, and create working groups and studies on automated vehicles, wheelchair securement, fire rescue access, and vehicle identification numbers.
Who benefits
All U.S. vehicle owners and passengers who would benefit from improved safety standards and more transparent rulemaking. Consumers shopping for new vehicles who would receive better safety rating information through an expanded NCAP. Wheelchair users who could benefit from a study on automated securement systems. First responders who would receive recommendations on safer post-crash vehicle access, particularly for electric vehicles. Automakers seeking clearer rulemaking timelines and expanded exemption eligibility (threshold raised from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles). Autonomous and advanced driver-assistance technology companies that would benefit from clearer regulatory pathways. Older adults and people with disabilities who are specifically included in the consumer education working group. Researchers and academics appointed to advisory bodies.
Who is hurt
Manufacturers of vehicles currently relying on existing safety standard exemptions may face new procedural requirements. Consumer and safety advocacy groups that prefer stricter, faster rulemaking may find the bill's review process — which allows standards to be "revised or eliminated" — creates opportunities to weaken protections. NHTSA itself would face new administrative burdens and reporting mandates. Taxpayers would bear the cost of new offices, advisory committees, working groups, and studies, though no specific appropriation is made. Vehicle owners who prefer certified mail recall notices may find electronic notification less reliable if manufacturers default to email. Smaller or independent auto dealers and repair shops are not represented in the advisory structures despite being affected by recall and safety standard changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that NHTSA's rulemaking process has been chronically slow and opaque — the agency has missed dozens of congressionally mandated rulemaking deadlines over the past decade, leaving outdated safety standards in place. They contend that formalizing a 36-month priority plan, creating a dedicated NCAP office, and requiring periodic standard reviews would bring accountability and transparency to a process that currently lacks both. They also argue that expanding the safety standard exemption threshold from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles would allow innovative manufacturers, including those developing autonomous vehicle technology, to bring safety-improving products to market faster without compromising overall safety.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's most consequential provision — expanding the safety standard exemption threshold by 36-fold, from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles — could allow a significant number of vehicles to operate outside established federal safety standards, potentially exposing consumers to unproven technologies at scale. They contend that the periodic review process, which explicitly considers manufacturer costs and allows standards to be "revised or eliminated," creates a mechanism to weaken existing protections under the guise of modernization. They further argue that exempting NHTSA research and advisory committee activities from the Paperwork Reduction Act reduces a layer of public oversight over how the agency collects and uses data.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate motor vehicle safety rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as motor vehicles and their components move extensively in interstate commerce — well within the aggregation principle established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill delegates significant rulemaking and review authority to NHTSA; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will now independently assess whether NHTSA's interpretations of its statutory authority are correct, rather than deferring to the agency, which could affect how the expanded exemption provisions and standard-elimination authority are applied.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (NHTSA/DOT) gains new administrative authority to review and potentially eliminate safety standards and grant expanded exemptions, but Congress checks this through mandatory biennial reporting, GAO oversight studies, and the requirement that any standard revision be consistent with motor vehicle safety.
Historical precedent
The FAST Act (2015) and MAP-21 (2012) similarly directed NHTSA to complete overdue rulemakings and improve program accountability, with mixed results in meeting subsequent deadlines.