119-HR-7389 Journalist Public Summary

Headline Summary

A plan to update NHTSA’s safety playbook: build a public 3‑year roadmap, revamp the 5‑star-style New Car Assessment Program, modernize recalls and communications, and widen temporary exemptions for new tech—especially automated vehicles—so innovation can be tested at larger scale.

What It Does

In plain English: this bill tells NHTSA (the federal auto‑safety agency) to publish a rolling 3‑year plan for safety rules and research, create a dedicated office and outside advisory committee to modernize the New Car Assessment Program (the consumer safety ratings), and use standard project‑management practices so rulemakings stay on schedule. It modernizes recall notifications (allowing email and other digital methods), studies why many recalled cars never get fixed, and creates working groups on fire rescues, consumer education about automated features, VIN modernization, vehicle ownership costs, and wheelchair securement systems. The most controversial change: it raises the cap and length for temporary exemptions from safety standards—often used to test emerging tech like self‑driving systems—and sets a one‑year shot clock for decisions, with applications deemed approved if DOT does not act in time.

Who’s For It

• Sponsor: Rep. Brett Guthrie (R‑KY).
• Innovation‑focused lawmakers and some state/local stakeholders who want faster federal timelines: the public priority plan, project‑management requirements, and GAO reviews aim to reduce delays and improve transparency.
• Automakers, AV and tech firms: larger, longer exemptions and a one‑year decision deadline reduce bottlenecks for testing limited‑run vehicles, while NCAP updates and a voluntary performance‑testing channel create clearer paths to showcase safety features.
• Consumer‑information advocates: upgrades to NCAP, digital recall notices, and new education efforts on driver‑assist versus full automation could make safety information easier to understand.

Who’s Against It

• Safety advocates may object to sharply expanding exemptions (both the annual cap and duration) and to auto‑approval if DOT misses a deadline, arguing these weaken backstops before risks are fully understood.
• Labor and first‑responder groups could raise concerns about post‑crash procedures for high‑voltage vehicles if design changes outpace training and standards, despite the bill’s fire‑rescue working group.
• Privacy and consumer‑protection groups may scrutinize broader use of digital recall outreach and expanded data uses within NCAP and studies, pressing for clear consent and accessibility for people without reliable internet.
• Fiscal skeptics might question new offices, committees, studies, and education campaigns if they add cost without measurable safety gains.

What’s Next

As of February 5, 2026, the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Next typical steps: committee hearings and mark‑up; if it advances, a House floor vote, then consideration in the Senate, and finally reconciliation and the President’s desk if both chambers pass it.

Key Trade‑Offs at a Glance

Key Numbers

Plain‑Language Notes

• NCAP is the familiar “stars/ratings” program for car safety. The bill creates a dedicated NCAP office, an 18‑member advisory committee, and more consumer education.
• Digital recall notices become the norm, but owners can still request certified mail.
• Multiple studies aim to close knowledge gaps: why cars don’t get recall fixes, how to label and design cars for safer fire‑rescue access, what VINs should include in a world of EVs and over‑the‑air updates, and how ownership costs are changing.
• A working group must explain differences between driver‑assist (Levels 1–2) and automated driving systems (Levels 3–5) so drivers know what the car can—and cannot—do.