Know Before You Drive Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7377

Last Updated: February 25, 2026

Know Before You Drive Act

HR. 7377, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$85,300 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of HR 7377: Know Before You Drive Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Know Before You Drive Act aims to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles. The bill's primary objective is to prevent manufacturers from making misleading claims about their products, ensuring transparency and accuracy in marketing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Prohibition on Misleading Claims**: Manufacturers are barred from making representations that imply a partially automated driving system has capabilities beyond its actual performance. 2. **Notification Requirements**: Manufacturers must provide clear and conspicuous notices to consumers about the features, capabilities, and limitations of partially automated vehicles. 3. **Updates and Enforcement**: The bill establishes procedures for software updates and enforcement mechanisms through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Manufacturers**: Companies producing partially automated vehicles will need to adapt their marketing strategies and provide accurate information to consumers. 2. **Consumers**: The bill aims to empower consumers by providing them with clear and concise information about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles. 3. **Regulatory Agencies**: NHTSA and FTC will play a crucial role in enforcing the provisions of this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Transparency**: The bill promotes transparency in marketing, which may lead to increased consumer trust and confidence in partially automated vehicles. 2. **Innovation Inhibition**: Overly prescriptive regulations may stifle innovation in the autonomous vehicle industry, as manufacturers may be hesitant to invest in research and development due to fear of regulatory backlash. 3. **Competitive Advantage**: Companies that excel in providing accurate information and transparent marketing practices may gain a competitive advantage in the market.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that this bill's focus on transparency is a step in the right direction. However, I also recognize that overregulation can stifle innovation and hinder progress. A balanced approach that promotes transparency while allowing for flexibility and adaptability is crucial to driving growth and advancement in the autonomous vehicle industry.

**Recommendations**

1. **Streamline Regulatory Framework**: Encourage regulatory agencies to adopt a more streamlined and efficient framework for enforcing provisions, reducing bureaucratic hurdles. 2. **Industry-Led Standards**: Foster collaboration between manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and industry experts to establish standards for transparency and accuracy in marketing partially automated vehicles. 3. **Incentivize Innovation**: Implement policies that incentivize innovation and investment in autonomous vehicle research and development, such as tax credits or grants.

By adopting a forward-thinking approach, we can create an environment that promotes innovation, transparency, and growth in the autonomous vehicle industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, HR 7377, is called the "Know Before You Drive Act." Its main purpose and objective are to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles.

Now, remember when we learned about committees in Congress? Well, this bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will review and potentially modify it before sending it back to the full House for a vote. If passed, it would then go to the Senate, where the process repeats itself.

The key provisions of this bill include:

* Prohibiting manufacturers from making misleading claims about partially automated driving systems * Requiring manufacturers to provide clear and conspicuous notices to consumers about the capabilities and limitations of these systems * Mandating updates to consumers when software changes affect the performance of the dynamic driving task

These provisions aim to change existing law by adding new regulations on the automotive industry. Specifically, they would amend Section 30165(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, to give the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) enforcement authority over these new requirements.

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Manufacturers of partially automated vehicles * Dealerships that sell these vehicles * Consumers who purchase or lease these vehicles * State attorneys general, who would have the authority to bring civil actions against manufacturers for non-compliance

Now, as I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, this bill has potential implications for the separation of powers between Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would also play a role in enforcing these new regulations.

If passed, this law could have significant impacts on the automotive industry, consumer safety, and the development of autonomous vehicle technology. It's essential to understand how bills like this one become laws and how they can shape our society. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 7377, the "Know Before You Drive Act". Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to educate consumers about partially automated vehicles. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen for something bigger?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill prohibits manufacturers from making misleading claims about their partially automated driving systems. That's all well and good, but what caught my attention was Section 2(c), which requires manufacturers to provide updates on software changes that affect the performance of these systems. Now, I'm no expert, but doesn't this sound like a backdoor for the government to regulate the development of autonomous vehicles?

And let's not forget about Section 3(d), which gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement authority over these provisions. That's right, folks; we're talking about two powerful agencies with a history of overreach.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers, dealers, and consumers are all affected by this bill. But what about the real stakeholders – the ones who stand to gain from the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles? I'm talking about Big Tech, folks! Companies like Google, Tesla, and Uber have a vested interest in shaping the regulatory landscape for self-driving cars.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for the future of transportation. By regulating partially automated vehicles, the government is setting the stage for a complete overhaul of our transportation infrastructure. And let's not forget about the data collection aspect – with autonomous vehicles comes a treasure trove of personal data that can be exploited by corporations and governments alike.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this bill just wants to keep consumers safe!" Ah, yes, safety is always the Trojan horse for government overreach. Mark my words, folks; this bill is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards a surveillance state on wheels.

So there you have it – HR 7377 in all its glory. Don't be fooled by the innocent-sounding title; this bill has teeth, and they're aimed straight at our freedom.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got another "consumer protection" bill on our hands, courtesy of the elites in Congress. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, are they looking out for us! The Know Before You Drive Act, HR 7377, is all about informing consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles. Because, you know, we can't be trusted to figure it out ourselves.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main objective is to prevent manufacturers from making misleading claims about their partially automated driving systems. (Smirk) You know, those fancy features that are supposed to make our lives easier but might actually just confuse us more. The bill aims to ensure that consumers understand what these systems can and cannot do.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits manufacturers from making false or misleading claims about their partially automated driving systems (Section 2(a)). It also requires manufacturers to provide clear and conspicuous notices to consumers when selling partially automated vehicles, detailing the system's capabilities and limitations (Section 2(b)). Additionally, the bill updates existing law by granting enforcement authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers of partially automated vehicles will be directly impacted by this bill. Dealerships and consumers who purchase these vehicles will also be affected, as they'll need to receive clear notices about the system's capabilities and limitations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. (Wink) This bill might seem like a noble effort to protect consumers, but think about it: are we really going to trust the government to dictate what information manufacturers can and cannot share with us? It's all about freedom of choice, folks! Do we want the elites in Washington telling us what we need to know or not?

Furthermore, this bill might stifle innovation in the automotive industry. Manufacturers might be hesitant to develop new features if they're worried about being sued for making "misleading claims." (Scoffs) And let's not forget about the added costs of compliance, which will likely be passed on to consumers.

In conclusion, the Know Before You Drive Act is just another example of government overreach. We need to ask ourselves: do we really want the government controlling every aspect of our lives, including what we know and don't know about our cars? (Rhetorical question) I think not!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Congress. The "Know Before You Drive Act" - because, apparently, Americans need to be told what they're buying when it comes to partially automated vehicles.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated driving systems. Because, you know, people are just too stupid to figure it out on their own. The sponsors of this bill must think Americans are a bunch of drooling idiots who can't even read a manual.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits manufacturers from making misleading claims about partially automated driving systems (because they're already doing that, and we need a law to stop them). It also requires clear and conspicuous notices to be provided to consumers when purchasing or leasing a vehicle with such a system. Oh, and there are updates to enforcement authorities, because God forbid the Federal Trade Commission actually do its job.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers of partially automated vehicles (i.e., the ones who will have to comply with these new regulations), dealerships (who'll have to provide those lovely notices), consumers (who might actually benefit from this, but probably won't because they're too busy tweeting about their feelings), and state attorneys general (who get to sue manufacturers for non-compliance).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on the festering wound of corporate greed and regulatory capture. It's a token effort to appear concerned about consumer safety while actually doing nothing to address the root causes of the problem. The real impact will be on manufacturers' marketing departments, which will have to come up with new ways to spin their partially automated vehicles as "autonomous" without getting sued.

In short, this bill is a joke - a pathetic attempt to appear proactive while accomplishing nothing meaningful. It's a symptom of a larger disease: the corruption and incompetence that plagues our legislative system. But hey, at least it'll give politicians something to tweet about.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Know Before You Drive Act (HR 7377) aims to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles, ensuring they understand what these systems can and cannot do. The bill seeks to prevent manufacturers from making misleading claims about their products and requires clear disclosure of the features, capabilities, and limitations of partially automated driving systems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill prohibits manufacturers from making representations that imply a partially automated driving system is an automated driving system or has capabilities beyond its actual performance. It also requires:

1. Manufacturers to provide a clear and conspicuous notice to purchasers about the features, capabilities, and limitations of partially automated vehicles. 2. Dealers to provide this notice to buyers before delivering the vehicle. 3. Manufacturers to update owners, lessees, or drivers about material changes to the capabilities and limitations of partially automated driving systems through software updates.

The bill amends existing law by granting enforcement authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It also allows state attorneys general to bring civil actions against manufacturers that violate these provisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Manufacturers of partially automated vehicles 2. Dealers selling partially automated vehicles 3. Owners, lessees, or drivers of partially automated vehicles 4. NHTSA and FTC (enforcement agencies) 5. State attorneys general

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The Know Before You Drive Act has several potential impacts:

1. **Improved consumer awareness**: By requiring clear disclosure of the capabilities and limitations of partially automated driving systems, consumers will be better informed about what to expect from these vehicles. 2. **Reduced confusion and misperceptions**: The bill's provisions should help reduce confusion among consumers about the differences between partially automated and fully automated driving systems. 3. **Enhanced safety**: By ensuring that consumers understand the limitations of partially automated driving systems, the bill may contribute to safer road behavior and reduced accidents caused by misuse or overreliance on these systems. 4. **Increased transparency and accountability**: The bill's enforcement provisions will hold manufacturers accountable for making misleading claims about their products.

Overall, the Know Before You Drive Act aims to promote consumer awareness, safety, and transparency in the rapidly evolving market of partially automated vehicles.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, the Know Before You Drive Act (HR 7377). I'll give you the lowdown on what it's all about, who's affected, and what it means for the future of driving.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main objective of this bill is to keep consumers informed about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles. It aims to prevent manufacturers from making misleading claims that might lead people to think their ride is more autonomous than it actually is. The bill wants to ensure that drivers know what they're getting into when they hop behind the wheel.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Here are some key takeaways:

* Manufacturers can't make false or misleading claims about their partially automated vehicles. * They gotta provide clear and conspicuous notices to buyers about the vehicle's capabilities and limitations, including its operational design domain (that's a fancy way of saying "where it can and can't drive"). * Dealers need to give these notices to customers before selling them a partially automated vehicle. * Manufacturers must also update owners, lessees, or drivers when they release software updates that change the vehicle's capabilities.

The bill amends existing law by giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) more authority to enforce these rules. States can also take action against manufacturers that violate these provisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Manufacturers of partially automated vehicles * Dealers who sell these vehicles * Consumers who buy or lease these vehicles * State attorneys general, who can bring civil actions against manufacturers that break the rules

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The Know Before You Drive Act has some far-reaching implications:

* It could lead to more transparency in the automotive industry, which is a major win for consumers. * Manufacturers might need to rethink their marketing strategies and be more honest about what their vehicles can and can't do. * The bill could also influence the development of autonomous vehicle technology, as manufacturers will need to be more careful about how they describe their products. * States might become more active in enforcing these rules, which could lead to a patchwork of different regulations across the country.

Overall, this bill is all about keeping consumers informed and safe on the roads. It's a step towards creating a more transparent and responsible automotive industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 7377 - Know Before You Drive Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Know Before You Drive Act aims to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially automated vehicles, ensuring they understand what these systems can and cannot do. The bill seeks to prevent manufacturers from making misleading claims about their products and requires clear disclosure of system features and limitations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Prohibition on Misleading Claims:** Manufacturers are prohibited from making representations that imply a partially automated driving system is an automated driving system or has capabilities beyond its actual performance. 2. **Notification Requirements:** Manufacturers must provide a clear notice to consumers at the time of sale, detailing the features and limitations of the partially automated driving system. 3. **Updates and Changes:** Manufacturers must notify owners, lessees, or drivers of material changes to the system's capabilities and limitations through software updates.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Automobile Manufacturers:** Companies like General Motors, Ford, and Tesla will be required to comply with the new disclosure requirements. 2. **Consumers:** Drivers who purchase partially automated vehicles will benefit from clearer information about their vehicle's capabilities and limitations. 3. **Dealerships:** Dealers will need to ensure they provide the required notice to consumers at the time of sale.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency:** The bill promotes transparency in the automotive industry, helping consumers make informed decisions when purchasing partially automated vehicles. 2. **Reduced Confusion and Misconceptions:** By requiring clear disclosure of system features and limitations, the bill aims to reduce confusion and misconceptions about partially automated driving systems. 3. **Potential Liability Reduction:** Manufacturers may benefit from reduced liability by providing clear information about their products' capabilities and limitations.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) are likely to be involved in shaping this legislation, as they represent the interests of automobile manufacturers and dealerships. The AAM has contributed to the campaigns of several lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill.

**Committee Capture:** The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a history of being influenced by the automotive industry. Several committee members have received significant campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers and their trade associations, which may impact the committee's approach to regulating the industry.

Overall, the Know Before You Drive Act aims to promote transparency and consumer education in the automotive industry. While it is likely to face opposition from some industry stakeholders, its passage could lead to increased accountability and reduced liability for manufacturers, ultimately benefiting consumers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$85,300

19 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

$54,200

Committees

Individuals

$30,100

CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

2 transactions

$6,600

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

3 transactions

$6,600

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

3 transactions

$4,800

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

1 transaction

$3,300

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

SAMISH TYEE

2 transactions

$2,000

KALISPEL INDIAN ECONOMIC AUTHORITY

1 transaction

$1,000

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

COLLIER, JOHN

2 transactions

$13,200

BRIDGE, JONATHAN J

1 transaction

$6,600

MATHEY, BRUCE

1 transaction

$5,300

BROTMAN, SUSAN

1 transaction

$5,000

Donor Network - Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 57 nodes and 30 connections (85 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,300

Top Donors - Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC14 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2(a) prohibits manufacturers from making misleading claims about partially automated driving systems, which could restrict marketing and sales practices for automotive manufacturers that produce vehicles with such systems, imposing compliance costs and potential liability.
−Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.85
Section 2(b) requires manufacturers and dealers to provide clear notices about partially automated driving systems upon first sale, including for electric vehicles equipped with such systems, adding regulatory burdens on EV manufacturers like Tesla that integrate advanced driver-assistance features.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(c) mandates notices for software updates that materially affect dynamic driving tasks, including over-the-air updates, which could impact telecommunications companies involved in vehicle connectivity and OTA update platforms, requiring compliance with new disclosure standards.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Telecommunications$2,150
from 21 contributions
- HAKALA, GREGG$800
- COSSON, CHUCK$600
- FRIEDMAN, LEE$500
- WILLIAMS, FREDERICK$250
Electric Vehicles & Batteries$1,000
from 1 contribution
- SALSER, MARK$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on safety, transparency, and the responsible integration of automated vehicles by ensuring consumers understand system limitations and preventing misleading claims, which supports informed adoption and reduces misuse risks."

Key themes:automated vehiclessafety priorityconsumer transparencyregulatory claritytechnology neutrality

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section address automated vehicle safety and the need for clearer understanding of AV capabilities, but the bill adds consumer disclosure requirements while Project 2025 emphasizes reducing regulatory barriers and performance‑based rules, resulting in moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:automated vehiclessafetyconsumer transparencyregulatory oversighttechnology integration

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer disclosure and safety for partially automated vehicles, while the Project 2025 EPA section centers on emissions reporting, GHG standards, and limiting EPA authority. Both involve federal oversight of vehicles, but their substantive goals and mechanisms differ significantly."

Key themes:vehicle regulationfederal agency oversightconsumer information

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on consumer disclosure and safety for partially automated vehicles, while the Project 2025 DOT section centers on fuel economy standards, revoking California's waiver, and limiting FHWA's scope. Both touch on vehicle safety and regulatory oversight, but their primary objectives diverge significantly."

Key themes:vehicle safetyconsumer protectionregulatory oversight

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Know Before You Drive Act focuses on consumer transparency and safety regarding partially automated vehicles, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses environmental regulation, emissions reporting, and federal implementation plans under the Clean Air Act. There is no meaningful thematic or policy overlap between the two."

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Schrier, Kim

Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act

119/hr/3657

Back to All Bills