Research, Innovation and Technology

Manufacturers agree that the U.S. should address the potential national security and privacy risks associated with connected vehicles—those that use technologies to communicate with each other and other systems. But “[n]ational security, privacy and economic strength can be pursued in conjunction with one another,” the NAM told the Commerce Department this week.
 
What’s going on: In September, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security proposed rules to ban connected vehicles that integrate information and communications technology from China and Russia (POLITICO).

• While manufacturers support safeguarding efforts, “[o]ur competitiveness also requires national security challenges to be addressed through proportionate actions … [that] do not unduly hinder” American manufacturing, NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Chris Netram told BIS on Monday.
• The rule’s software prohibitions would go into effect for vehicles model year 2027, while the hardware regulations would take effect for vehicles model year 2030. The NAM is asking BIS to discuss with stakeholders whether they need more time to comply, given the length of the automotive design and development cycles.

What it could do: If finalized, the rule would require automotive manufacturers using Chinese or Russian technology to find new suppliers.
 
The problem: “Automotive supply chains are highly complex, with [information and communications technology and services] embedded in the products of many sub-suppliers who sell to automotive original equipment manufacturers,” Netram continued.

• What’s more, information and communications technology and services “are foundational technologies across the manufacturing ecosystem and wider economy. As such, the rule in its current form could generate unintended consequences both within the automotive industry and across the broader ICTS supply chain, violating the department’s obligation to engage in reasoned decision making and avoid arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.”   

What should happen: The NAM urged BIS to take several actions, including the following:

• Clearer definitions: Certain wording in the rule should be rephrased for clarity, including “Person Owned by, Controlled by or Subject to the Jurisdiction or Direction of a Foreign Adversary” and “Connected Vehicle.”
• Covered software: “[T]he NAM urges BIS to consider revising the proposed rule to ensure it does not require visibility into and control over the software code provided by an OEM’s tier 3 suppliers and beyond.”
• Specific authorizations: “[T]he NAM recommends that BIS issue clear guidance about what criteria the Office of Information and Communications Technology would use to review and approve the risk assessments and the measures proposed by the applicant to mitigate the risks.”
• Attestations of compliance: Allow companies “to attest to their compliance” rather than “document and demonstrate compliance” to safeguard trade secrets.

The final say: With the NAM’s recommended changes, the BIS’s draft rulemaking “will support national security and privacy while ensuring that a vibrant manufacturing industry can continue to innovate and power growth in America for years to come,” Netram concluded.