    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    HOW AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

    =======================================================================

                                    (113-42)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 19, 2013

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                     ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    85-609                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      Columbia
      Vice Chair                         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida       JANICE HAHN, California
    JEFF DENHAM, California              RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              DINA TITUS, Nevada
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    TREY RADEL, Florida
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina

                                      (ii)

    ?

                      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

                      THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         Columbia
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY G. MILLER, California           MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               JANICE HAHN, California
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida       DINA TITUS, Nevada
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice      SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    Chair                                ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                  (Ex Officio)
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
    Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic
      Safety Administration..........................................     5
    Kirk Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, on
      behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
      Transportation Officials.......................................     5
    Michael J. Robinson, Vice President, Sustainability and Global
      Regulatory Affairs, General Motors.............................     5
    Andrew Christensen, Senior Manager, Technology Planning and
      Strategic Technology Communication, Nissan Technical Center
      North America..................................................     5
    Raj Rajkumar, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical and Computer
      Engineering Department, Carnegie Mellon University.............     5
    Joshua L. Schank, Ph.D., President and CEO, Eno Center for
      Transportation.................................................     5

               PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee...................................    37

     PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
                                  BY WITNESSES

    Hon. David L. Strickland, prepared statement.....................    38
    Kirk Steudle:

        Prepared statement...........................................    47
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska........    56
    Michael J. Robinson:

        Prepared statement...........................................    57
        Answers to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Don Young, of Alaska................................    61
            Hon. Howard Coble, of North Carolina.....................    61
    Andrew Christensen:

        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Answers to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Don Young, of Alaska................................    65
            Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee...................    66
    Raj Rajkumar, Ph.D.:

        Prepared statement...........................................    67
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska........    72
    Joshua L. Schank, Ph.D.:

        Prepared statement...........................................    73
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska........    76

                           SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

    Consumer Electronics Association, written statement..............    78

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5609.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5609.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5609.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5609.004

    HOW AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    Room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Petri. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Today's hearing will focus on how autonomous vehicles will
    shape the future of surface transportation. These vehicles have
    the potential to offer incredible safety and mobility benefits
    to drivers and fundamentally transform transportation
    infrastructure as we know it.
        It is important to understand exactly what autonomous
    vehicles are. Some vehicles currently available to consumers
    have computer technology that performs some driving functions,
    such as automatic parallel parking and adaptive cruise control.
    These features are considered a basic level of autonomy, but
    the purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the impacts of
    more advanced levels of autonomy that could be available to the
    public in the next 10 to 20 years.
        More advanced autonomous vehicles are capable of alerting
    drivers to danger and controlling of vehicles' brakes and
    steering during certain situations where the driver reacts too
    slowly. These vehicles will blend human control with autonomous
    systems to make for a more convenient and a safer driving
    experience.
        The most advanced level of autonomous vehicle is capable of
    navigating roads with limited or no action from the driver by
    utilizing a variety of optical sensors, radar, and computer
    algorithms. The sensors deliver environmental data of the road
    and surrounding vehicles into the computer algorithm which then
    determines the appropriate driving maneuver.
        These vehicles do not suffer from intoxicated or fatigued
    driving, and are able to react to dangerous driving situations
    faster than can a human being. Many auto manufacturers have
    developed prototypes that one day could be offered to
    consumers.
        Carnegie Mellon University has developed and tested one
    such vehicle at the University Transportation Center, and we
    will hear from the director of their program today.
        Autonomous vehicles could significantly reduce traffic
    fatalities and crashes by reducing or eliminating driver error,
    which is a contributing factor to over 90 percent of all
    crashes. These crashes cost the United States economy over $200
    billion per year in medical, property and productivity losses.
        Crash reductions would also have the added benefit of
    reducing congestion since a high percentage of congestion is
    due to vehicle crashes. While safety is the most important
    benefit, autonomous vehicles could reduce congestion and
    improve fuel economy through better utilization of existing
    highway capacity and more efficient operation of the vehicle's
    acceleration and braking control.
        Seniors and persons with disabilities could be afforded
    greater mobility options that are not available to them today.
    Some researchers think autonomous vehicles could be offered to
    consumers on a service-based contract, which would provide a
    vehicle whenever the consumer requests one, but these benefits
    can only be realized if Federal and State authorities carefully
    prepare for their arrival and adopt policies that help
    autonomous vehicles assimilate into the transportation network.
        States have just started to address some of these
    challenges through laws allowing autonomous vehicles to operate
    on public roads and their licensing procedures. The U.S.
    Department of Transportation is conducting a pilot program on
    connected vehicle technology which could one day play a role in
    the autonomous vehicle system by communicating safety
    information to other vehicles on the road.
        Liability and cybersecurity concerns are significant
    barriers to autonomous vehicle adoption. Who is at fault in a
    crash between a vehicle operated by a human and one operated by
    a computer system?
        Are proper encryption technologies in place that protects
    autonomous vehicles from unwanted intrusion?
        All of these concerns must be addressed before benefits
    from autonomous vehicles can be realized. Vehicles and
    infrastructure that they utilize are becoming increasingly
    integrated with computer technology, which has the potential to
    revolutionize highway safety and mobility in our country. In
    order to see these benefits come to fruition, Federal and State
    officials should begin planning for the benefits and the
    challenges that autonomous vehicles will bring to the future of
    our Nation's surface transportation system.
        So I hope today's hearing will provide our committee
    members with insight into this important issue, and before I
    conclude my remarks I would like to commend Staff Director Jim
    Tymon for his 11 years of service and dedication to our
    committee. Jim is leaving the committee to join the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials as
    their director of management and program finance, and he has
    been a key staffer on the last two surface transportation
    authorizations and sacrificed countless hours away from his
    beautiful family to improve our Nation's transportation system.
        So on behalf of the committee, I wish you the best luck in
    your future endeavors, and thank you for your service over the
    many years to this committee.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Petri. I look forward to hearing our witnesses, but
    before that I turn to my ranking member, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    for any opening statement she might wish to make.
        Ms. Norton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
    want to thank you for calling this hearing on autonomous
    vehicles. This is my first hearing as ranking member. I am
    honored to serve with you and look forward to working closely
    with you and with the other members of the subcommittee on the
    opportunities and the challenge facing the Nation's
    infrastructure programs.
        I particularly look forward to today's testimony. I want to
    learn how manufacturers and those who are involved in the
    research are working to develop and test autonomous and
    connected vehicle technology, and perhaps we will speak a bit
    about the role of the States and the localities on the Federal
    Government in regulation for the safety of all involved.
        I expect that this hearing will spur a robust discussion,
    perhaps the kind of discussion we are not yet having in the
    United States about the policy and economic and the legal
    challenges and the opportunities presented as we embark into
    increasing levels of automation in vehicles just as we have in
    other forms of transportation.
        Just last week I had the opportunity to ride in an electric
    car, but unlike Chairman Petri, who has ridden in a connected
    vehicle, and Chairman Shuster whose ride in a driverless car
    has been widely reported, I have yet to have a car drive me. I
    am looking forward to that opportunity.
        Technology, of course, is already common in vehicles today.
    So we should not be surprised that driverless vehicles are
    already envisioned. After all, we are living with driverless
    vehicles. The Metro here used by Members, staff, and Federal
    employees has long used automatically driven cars, and
    automatic pilots are common in both planes and on rail.
        It is worth noting, however, that after a serious Metro
    crash here in 2009 that killed nine residents, Metro has been
    riding manually, and that is the case, although that accident
    was not directly attributed to the driverless nature of the
    trains. Manual deployment now is used as a safety precaution.
        The technology for driverless cars, of course, must cope
    with the risks and the dangers and the congestion that are far
    more complicated on the road than in the air or on rail.
    Perhaps, however, and this is how I would like to envision the
    technology that will lead to driverless cars, perhaps the
    technology applied to our transportation infrastructure on the
    ground has the power to actually reduce our accidents and
    risks, and the chairman has spoken of some of them. I will not
    reiterate them.
        But mass deployment of technology is already ushering in
    dramatic gains in safety by significantly reducing vehicle
    crashes and saving lives. I have a strong interest in
    facilitating the use of technology-based solutions in a number
    of ways to address our surface transportation challenges.
        This hearing, therefore, is not futuristic. I believe that
    understanding and preparing for the future of our surface
    transportation system now is important so that technological
    advances can turn into benefits for highway users as they
    become commercially available.
        There are, of course, even more immediate issues this
    subcommittee must resolve in the near term. Our subcommittee
    must grapple with the looming insolvency of the Highway Trust
    Fund at the end of fiscal year 2014. I hope that the
    subcommittee seizes every opportunity to find a solution to our
    Nation's surface transportation funding woes, about which we
    hear so much daily. We can ill afford to wait until next year
    to solve that problem.
        I know you share my concerns, Chairman Petri, and I look
    forward to working with you to develop sensible solutions to
    keep our Nation moving forward as we begin to think through
    reauthorization of a new surface transportation bill. Then
    perhaps we will really be ready to move forward and utilize the
    new technology that we will hear about at today's hearing.
        I want to thank today's witnesses for joining us in advance
    and to thank you for your testimony, and I wanted to apologize,
    Mr. Chairman, to you and to our witnesses that a subcommittee
    hearing in another subcommittee of this committee is
    considering revitalization of a site near the Wall in my
    district. So I will be traveling by foot between this very
    important hearing and that hearing.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. I am on that subcommittee and am
    playing hooky, but I certainly understand why you would want to
    be there.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses and to ask unanimous
    consent that their full statements be included in the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The panel consists of the Honorable David L. Strickland,
    who is the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration; Mr. Kirk Steudle, director of the Michigan
    Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials;
    Michael J. Robinson, vice president, Sustainability and Global
    Regulatory Affairs for the General Motors Corporation; Mr.
    Andrew Christensen, senior manager for Technology Planning,
    Nissan Technical Center North America; Dr. Raj Rajkumar, who is
    a professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department of
    Carnegie Mellon University; and Dr. Joshua L. Schank, president
    and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation.
        Gentlemen, thank you very much for attending this hearing
    and for the effort that you and your staff put into the
    prepared statements which will be made a part of the record,
    and I would invite you to summarize them in approximately 5
    minutes and give the committee a chance to ask questions as
    well.
        We will begin with Mr. Strickland.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
    HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; KIRK STEUDLE, DIRECTOR,
        MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
       AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
    OFFICIALS; MICHAEL J. ROBINSON, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY
         AND GLOBAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, GENERAL MOTORS; ANDREW
    CHRISTENSEN, SENIOR MANAGER, TECHNOLOGY PLANNING AND STRATEGIC
        TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATION, NISSAN TECHNICAL CENTER NORTH
        AMERICA; RAJ RAJKUMAR, PH.D., PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL AND
     COMPUTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY;
    AND JOSHUA L. SCHANK, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, ENO CENTER FOR
                             TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
    I also want to thank and recognize Ranking Member Holmes Norton
    and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify on
    automated vehicles and the implication for the future of
    surface transportation.
        The future of the automobile is extremely bright.
    Increasingly a car's capabilities are determined more by its
    electronics than by its mechanics. This is bringing countless
    innovations and improve driver comfort, provide useful
    information and entertainment, and most importantly, advanced
    safety.
        According to our estimates, there were 33,561 people that
    lost their lives on America's roadways in 2012. In addition to
    the devastation that their crashes caused to these families,
    the economic cost to society reached into the hundreds of
    billions of dollars. Automated vehicles can potentially help
    reduce these numbers significantly.
        Traditionally, we have improved survivability by advancing
    the vehicle's crash worthiness along with a number of people
    that are sitting with me at this table and other manufacturers
    across the globe. With those technologies, such as seat belts
    and air bags, occupants are more likely to survive a crash than
    they were more than 20 or 30 years ago. Today there are new,
    exciting prospects for advancing safety through new crash
    avoidance technologies that could prevent a crash from
    occurring in the first place.
        To that end, I am pleased to highlight the Significant and
    Seamless initiative that the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration recently announced. The Significant and Seamless
    initiative addresses the areas in highway safety where industry
    can fast track existing safety technology.
        One major component is forward collision avoidance and
    mitigation, a sensor-based vehicle technology that can detect
    the imminent crash and alert the driver to take corrective
    action and automatically apply the brakes.
        We have greatly accelerated our efforts to initiate and
    complete research of the Connected Vehicles Program. V2V, which
    depends on the 5 gigahertz spectrum, is designed to give
    drivers situational awareness to improve safe decisionmaking on
    the road.
        Chairman Petri, I would like to thank you for taking time
    to visit our demonstration at RFK Stadium earlier this year.
        I think the Connected Vehicles Program is a critical
    evolution of crash avoidance technology.
        Recently traditional and nontraditional auto companies have
    unveiled research projects to develop self-driving cars.
    Unsurprisingly, people find this fascinating. With all the
    discussion surrounding automated driving, we find it helpful to
    think of these emerging technologies as part of a continuing of
    vehicle control.
        To that end, NHTSA has issued a preliminary statement of
    policy concerning automated vehicles where we define levels of
    automation starting from your basic 1957 Chevy at level zero
    with no automation at all, all the way to full automation
    requires no input or control from the driver.
        Automated driving is an exciting frontier for the industry,
    and we have identified three key areas for preliminary
    research: human factors and human-machine interface; initial
    system performance requirements; and electronic control system
    safety. Our research will inform agency policy decisions and
    assist in developing an overall set of requirements and
    standards for automated vehicles.
        Several States, including the great State of Michigan, have
    enacted legislation expressly authorizing the operation of
    autonomous vehicles within their borders under certain
    conditions. Generally, these laws seem to contemplate partially
    self-driving or fully autonomous operation.
        We offer recommendations to the States considering
    legislation or regulations governing licensing, testing and
    operation of self-driving vehicles on public roads in order to
    encourage the safe development of automated vehicles. In
    general, we believe that States are well suited to address
    issues such as licensing, driver training, and conditions for
    operation related to the specific types of vehicles.
        We do not at this time recommend that State permit
    operation of self-driving vehicles for purposes other than
    testing. Any greater State regulation at this time may stifle
    innovation needed to improve safety, reliability, and the
    collection of data.
        The promise of advanced vehicles is very exciting. While
    certainly there is a risk with any emerging technology, I
    firmly believe that when the risk is properly identified,
    understood and mitigated, we can help minimize it and reap the
    potential benefits.
        One additional note, Mr. Chairman, as a point of personal
    privilege. I just also wanted to acknowledge Jim Tymon's
    fantastic service. I had the opportunity to work with him on
    SAFETEA-LU, oh, so many years ago as I was working on the
    Senate side, on Senate Commerce Committee, and Jim was a
    fantastic colleague, occasional adversary, but overall a great
    friend, and one of the best policy minds in Washington, DC, and
    I just want to thank you for all of his years of friendship and
    expertise, and God bless you, and have all of the best
    opportunities at AASHTO.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        He is moving on up to AASHTO.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Steudle.
        Mr. Steudle. Good morning, Chairman Petri and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity, on
    behalf of AASHTO and the State departments of transportation,
    to share our views on how autonomous vehicles will shape the
    future of transportation.
        I have three points for you. First, the ultimate goal is
    the safest and most efficient transportation system imaginable,
    and it may be possible to achieve this goal with accident free
    vehicles, vehicles that can drive themselves, and vehicles,
    drivers, and transportation infrastructure that safety,
    securely and reliably share real time information.
        Second, widespread acceptance and deployment of driverless
    vehicles and of interconnected vehicles and infrastructure will
    be challenging and evolutionary.
        Third, there are actions that you can take today to move
    forward with these technological advances and effectively
    prepare us for the future.
        Now, allow me to elaborate on these three points. First,
    the big picture. In reality, autonomous and interconnected
    vehicles, drivers, and infrastructure are a means to achieving
    our society's larger goals of an accident free transportation
    system.
        Mr. Chairman, as you noted in the beginning, the safety
    benefits are huge. They are enormous. You also noted that the
    driver was at error in most crashes. If we can take the driver
    out of the equation, we have the potential to reduce the
    severity of crashes and crash rates significantly.
        Some of the technology is already available, such as
    traffic signal overrides for emergency vehicles and buses, and
    automatic braking that reacts more quickly than humans can.
    Autonomous vehicles could significantly improve the mobility
    for those who are permanently or temporarily disabled and our
    aging population.
        Vehicles that can communicate in real time with other
    vehicles, drivers and infrastructure can enable vehicles to
    drive closer together, allowing the transport system to operate
    more efficiently. Ultimately the deployment of connected and
    autonomous vehicles could fundamentally change the way we
    design and build roads and bridges.
        For example, with crashless cars the need for a 12-foot-
    wide lane, guard rails, rumble strips, wide shoulders and even
    stop signs could decrease and be replaced with the need for
    sensors and next-generation traffic signals.
        But achieving this vision will not happen overnight, which
    leads me to my second point. Additional research, development,
    testing and evolution will be needed before there will be
    widespread acceptance and deployment. This will take many
    years.
        This evolution will include the deployment of many enabling
    technologies ranging from sensor-based information to wireless
    communications between vehicles and vehicles with the
    infrastructure and even technologies that we have not thought
    of yet. During this evolutionary period, we do not want to
    limit our options or impede further significant advances in
    technology. We need to be very cautious.
        However, we have substantial deployment challenges that
    must be addressed, and here are a few things to consider. The
    hardware investment needed to equip vehicles and to retrofit
    roadways with new technologies and materials will add to the
    substantial roadway preservation deficit we already face.
        Privacy concerns associated with data sharing could prove
    to be a significant hurdle in the development. Electronic
    security risks, as you noted earlier, such as viruses and
    hacking could threaten widespread acceptance.
        Our fleet turnover rate of vehicles is currently at about
    20 years, meaning you introduce new technology today and it
    will take 20 years for the full fleet to be completely
    converted.
        Connected vehicle technology must have a secure and fast
    communications network to work, faster than is currently
    available with traditional cellular communications. The FCC has
    reserved 5.9 gigahertz bandwidth for this use. They are now
    considering sharing this use with other wireless communications
    providers, and we think that that needs to be done very
    cautiously.
        And lastly, there will be a range of operational challenges
    during this transition period when both autonomous and
    nonautonomous vehicles will be sharing the roadways.
        Finally, we have recommendations to advance autonomous
    vehicle technology today. First of all, encourage NHTSA to make
    its decision this year on requiring vehicle technology for all
    new passenger vehicles.
        Second, protect the 5.9 gigahertz bandwidth for the
    connected vehicle program.
        Third, fund research to more fully understand the breadth
    of possible operating scenarios and implications that
    autonomous and connected vehicle technology will have.
        And, fourth, support the continuing collaboration between
    the U.S. Department of Transportation, the State departments of
    transportation, and the global automakers and suppliers. This
    collaboration will be essential for the successful deployment
    of autonomous vehicles into the future.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the
    committee for taking on this issue and for your leadership to
    make sure that our Nation's transportation system continues to
    be the envy of the world. Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Robinson.
        Mr. Robinson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate this
    morning in this very important hearing.
        The idea or autonomous driving has captured our collective
    attention and imagination, but in reality many of the future
    building blocks upon which it rests are already here. The role
    technology is already playing to assist the drivers or our
    vehicles in managing the conditions and circumstances they
    encounter on the highways today is providing the foundation for
    future breakthroughs.
        It should not be surprising that GM is investing in
    technologies that ultimately will provide even greater levels
    of driver assistance and vehicle management, and importantly,
    we are working on systems that do not require dramatic upgrades
    or modifications to the national highway infrastructure
    network.
        To the greatest degree possible, our goal is to keep the
    systems we are talking about contained within the vehicles and
    between the vehicles. However, we do have one low-tech need:
    clearly marked lanes and shoulders. This will enhance the
    capabilities of these technologies that we are already using to
    sense the road, such as radar, ultrasonic sensors and cameras,
    along with, of course, GPS location capabilities.
        Over the past 2 years, the media has devoted much time and
    attention to the idea of a self-driving car. For the most part,
    as the name implies, people assume that an autonomous vehicle
    will take you to your destination without any personal
    involvement after simply issuing a command, without any
    oversight by the driver. It is easy to understand why this
    captures our imagination.
        However, these types of driverless systems are a
    significant distance into the future. Realistically and for the
    foreseeable future, the driver will still need to be engaged
    and in control. Simply put, this is because driving is a very
    complicated business, and it will take some time for the
    computer driven systems to be capable of managing an reacting
    to all of the situations and road conditions that drivers do
    encounter.
        That said, we are quickly forging ahead in a very
    thoughtful way to enhance safety by reducing driver workload.
    We consider these systems to be like having an extra set of
    eyes available for the driver. For example, today GM offers
    adaptive cruise control, ACC, on variety of our vehicles, an
    example of the building blocks that I just mentioned that will
    move us to the more automated systems of the future.
        ACC is an intelligent form of cruise control that slows
    down and speeds up a vehicle automatically at pace with the
    traffic ahead. Like normal cruise control, the driver sets the
    speed, but also sets a distance gap setting. ACC is typically
    paired with a collision warning system that alerts the driver
    of a potential collision ahead and may also be equipped with a
    system that begins braking before the driver might have time to
    react. This system is already on various Cadillac vehicles and
    our new Chevrolet Impala.
        GM has talked publicly about taking this very type of
    system to the next level, for example, adding the ability of
    the vehicle to maintain lane control. We call this more
    advanced system Super Cruise and expect it will provide even
    greater driver assistance, including hands free capability on
    certain freeway drives.
        This system, too, though will require a driver's
    supervision. We believe this type of technology can
    realistically be brought to market before this decade ends.
        Beyond that, the definition of what constitutes autonomous
    and automated vehicles and automated technology is being
    discussed and can be interpreted in various ways. The document
    that David Strickland referred to, ``Preliminary Statement of
    Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles,'' really starts to frame
    that discussion and will provide a good basis for our
    collaborative work that needs to be done among the various
    players down the road.
        At the same time a number of States are also becoming
    involved in defining, guiding or even regulating autonomous
    technology implementation. We think this is a bit premature,
    but to the extent States do decide they need to be involved,
    quite frankly, the approach the State of Michigan has taken to
    carefully make sure current systems and the building blocks I
    mentioned are not in peril as we test these future vehicles.
        In addition to the obvious highway safety benefits of more
    automated vehicles, wide implementation of these systems could
    offer potentially significant benefits for improved fuel
    economy and CO2 reduction. Also eliminating or virtually
    eliminating crashes could have profound impact on how we
    engineer vehicles for future occupant safety and crash
    worthiness. It will give us the opportunity to take a fresh
    look at how we design body structures that manage crash energy.
    Fewer crashes means easier engineering.
        Consequently, there may be opportunities to further reduce
    vehicle mass.
        Finally, the ability to sense other cars, traffic
    congestion and even pedestrians would allow for smoother
    traffic flows, reduced noise and less pollution. Everybody wins
    in that scenario.
        So you may ask how can we get this technology to the road
    faster. What can you do as a committee. We have three
    suggestions. Let the market work. Let manufacturers like GM do
    what we do best and compete for customers with features that
    add real value to the drive today and to the future generations
    of vehicles tomorrow.
        Two, support a Federal approach to addressing these issues.
    We need a regular standard that can be adopted across all 50
    States, not a patchwork of 50 different standards.
        And, three, I would suggest respectfully that we need to
    provide an environment that promotes the development and
    implementation of these technologies here in the United States
    rather than in other countries, for example, reasonable
    protection for automakers and dealers from frivolous litigation
    for systems that meet and surpass whatever performance
    standards are established by the Government.
        I have run out of time, Mr. Chairman, but in conclusion, I
    want to let you know that we are committed to these
    technologies. We are moving full steam ahead and look forward
    to your questions.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Christensen.
        Mr. Christensen. Thank you, Chairman Petri and members of
    the committee.
        I am the senior manager of Technology Planning at Nissan's
    Technical Center located in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Nissan
    has established ambitious goals for the development of
    autonomous vehicles. So I am particularly honored to testify
    about how autonomous vehicles will shape the future of
    transportation.
        Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of the Renault-Nissan Alliance,
    recently announced the goal for Nissan to have an affordable
    autonomous drive vehicle ready by 2020. This timeframe is
    challenging, but we believe achievable.
        Autonomous drive technologies can be classified by the
    level of automation ranging from emerging active safety
    technologies, such as forward emergency braking, to more
    autonomous vehicles and ultimately driverless cars. While many
    advantages are often cited for each level of autonomous
    technology, the potential safety benefit is the most important
    reason to pursue its development.
        It is estimated that human error is involved in over 90
    percent of the more than 6 million accidents occurring annually
    in the United States. Typically those crashes involve some
    level of driver inattention. We believe that autonomous driving
    technology has the potential to successfully address these
    types of situations resulting in these accidents.
        Nissan's work on autonomous drive is a continuation of over
    10 years of crash avoidance technology development inspired by
    our safety shield concept. This proactive development
    philosophy has enabled Nissan to introduce technologies
    designed to help drivers avoid a variety of risks from the
    front, side, and rear of the vehicle, including the world's
    first backup collision intervention and predictive forward
    collision warning systems.
        It is the exact safety systems that will form the
    foundation of our autonomous drive technologies. Nissan's
    efforts are focused on technology that operates within the
    available roadway infrastructure. In the future additional
    benefits could be achieved if autonomous technology is fully
    integrated with the transportation infrastructure, including
    traffic control and road systems.
        While some of the technologies that will act as the
    foundation for autonomous drive are already being introduced
    and we believe in their potential, the development of
    autonomous technology remains a challenging task which will
    require careful planning and resource allocation.
        From an engineering standpoint, Nissan is already investing
    in the future of autonomous driving. In the United States,
    Nissan has teams working at our Technical Center in Michigan,
    and we have also opened a research facility in Silicon Valley
    to integrate the rich IT knowledge available there.
        We are also creating a dedicated autonomous vehicle proving
    ground. Although Nissan is developing most of this technology
    in house, we will also partner with others as needed. For
    example, we will continue to collaborate with top level
    universities, such as Oxford, Stanford, MIT and Carnegie
    Mellon.
        However, a successful introduction of autonomous drive will
    require more than careful engineering development. Autonomous
    driving may significantly alter the way society views driving,
    making social acceptability an important factor that should be
    carefully managed in parallel with the technical development.
    An ongoing and open dialogue among stakeholders is critical to
    help address the social framework needed to support autonomous
    technology deployment.
        The necessary technical achievements and the maturing of
    social acceptance will be fostered gradually, step by step.
    Nissan conducted an autonomous driving demonstration at an
    event in California this summer and we are ready to conduct
    field operational tests in the United States and in other
    countries.
        Nissan has also received the first license plate for an
    autonomous vehicle in Japan, authorizing us to test vehicles on
    public roads.
        These demonstration events and field tests are important
    not only from a technology development perspective, but also to
    educate the public and help us understand social opinion. With
    the potential societal benefit that can come with autonomous
    driving, Nissan believes the United States can take a leading
    role in helping to promote safe and dynamic development of the
    technology.
        Such leadership may include the consideration of
    appropriate legislative action, funding for research and
    development, and studying the need for investment in wireless
    communication infrastructure to support future advancements.
        We hope that road traffic safety in the United States will
    be dramatically improved with the advent of autonomous driving,
    and we believe Nissan's commitment will contribute
    significantly to its progress.
        We look forward to working with Members of Congress as we
    move toward this challenging goal.
        Mr. Chairman and the committee, I thank you for your time
    and interest in this important issue.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Dr. Raj Rajkumar.
        Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member
    Norton, for convening this important hearing.
        I am honored to share my views as a researcher working with
    my colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University and the University
    of Pennsylvania at our U.S. DOT National University
    Transportation Center for Safety which is dedicated to
    developing technologies that target the holy grail of zero
    traffic fatalities.
        Our work is also supported by the National Science
    Foundation through the Cyber-Physical Systems Program and by
    General Motors.
        There is tremendous excitement building around autonomous
    vehicle capability in industry, academia and among the public.
    Today, we can envision a future of driving that is dramatically
    safer, more energy efficient, more sustainable, more productive
    and less congested, all without abrogating the role of the
    automobile in American life.
        Autonomous driving is a prospective and realistic solution
    to the challenges of traffic fatalities, congestion and loss of
    mobility. Indeed, as Chairman Shuster recently showed by his
    willingness to experience a seamless driverless vehicle first-
    hand on a 33-mile autonomous ride on September 4 in Pittsburgh,
    autonomous vehicles have already been shown to be feasible in
    real-world street and highway traffic conditions.
        Autonomous driving is an emerging and welcome result of the
    rich foundation of Federal investments in basic research and
    engineering, computer science and robotics. The seminal turning
    point in the pursuit of a grand vision of autonomous driving
    was the Urban Grand Challenge sponsored by the Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency, DARPA. This 2007 competition, won by
    our team from Carnegie Mellon University, clearly demonstrated
    the feasibility of autonomous driving in an urban, though
    restricted, setting.
        Continued basic research is required to address the
    challenges presented by bad weather, poor road conditions,
    different lighting conditions and to ensure safe recovery from
    any failures of subsystems.
        Fundamental advances are needed to successfully verify and
    validate the correct and secure operations of these cyber-
    physical systems. We at Carnegie Mellon University are
    addressing these core scientific challenges.
        One pivotal research thrust which will accelerate the
    safety and reliability of autonomous driving capabilities
    involves connected vehicle technologies. The accurate and
    reliable operation of autonomous vehicles will be significantly
    improved with the seamless integration of automation and
    connectivity.
        Carnegie Mellon has developed a 1.8-mile test-bed with 11
    instrumented traffic lights near Pittsburgh. A much larger
    test-bed will be developed next year.
        We are also exploring communication systems for use by
    bicyclists and pedestrians. Similarly, the big data
    opportunities in this domain will yield innovations in mobility
    analytics to identify and resolve traffic bottlenecks, to help
    emergency responders and to better integrate different modes of
    transportation.
        The following are some considerations for policymakers.
    First, we should exercise caution in rushing to deploy
    technologies before ensuring that they can be fully trusted.
    For the foreseeable future, a human must continue to be in the
    driver's seat even if the vehicle is capable of driving itself.
        Secondly, we must recognize that the pace of advances and
    adoption will depend on the level of support for continued
    research. Advances will still require serious R&D investments
    in both basic research and applied test-beds linking industry,
    universities, companies and communities.
        Thirdly, we must be sure that policy and regulatory
    innovations evolve along with this technology.
        Fourthly, we must ensure that adequate privacy and cyber-
    physical security safeguards are developed and integrated.
        Finally, these challenges should not deter policymakers
    from pursuing the goal of autonomous vehicles because this
    technology holds tremendous promise to reduce highway spending
    in the 2030-2040 timeframe.
        In closing, I thank the members of this committee for the
    opportunity to speak to you on an area of research that can
    profoundly transform our economy, our highways, and our lives.
    These investments will keep our Nation as the global leader in
    intelligent transportation systems.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Dr. Schank.
        Dr. Schank. Good morning and thank you for having me here
    today. Thank you, Chairman Petri and members of the committee.
    I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about autonomous
    vehicles.
        I am Joshua Schank. I am the president and CEO of the Eno
    Center for Transportation. We are a nonpartisan, objective,
    neutral transportation policy think tank based here in
    Washington, DC, and we were founded by William P. Eno 92 years
    ago. Mr. Eno was stuck in a traffic jam at the age of 9 in a
    horse and buggy in New York City and devoted the rest of his
    life to dealing with traffic and safety issues and founded the
    Eno Center for Transportation. So we have been working on this
    for a long time.
        This paper, ``Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles,
    Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations,'' was
    authored by Eno Fellow Dan Fagnant and his advisor Kara
    Kockelman at the University of Texas, and the paper sought to
    look at the barriers that exist to integrating autonomous
    vehicles and to understand how Federal policy can smooth the
    transition.
        First we looked at some of the big benefits that could come
    from autonomous vehicle introduction. These include safety,
    reduce congestion, fuel savings, and greater mobility for those
    who cannot drive themselves. We found that over 40 percent of
    fatal automotive crashes involve some kind of alcohol
    distracted driving or fatigue. So we could save potentially at
    least 10,000 lives per year with just a 50 percent market
    penetration for autonomous vehicles, which is pretty
    substantial.
        We also found that a cooperative adaptive cruise controls
    could potentially increase lane capacity on our existing
    highways by 21 percent, cutting fuel consumption by 224 million
    gallons per year, for a savings of approximately $37.4 billion
    annually. That is very substantial, and that is, again, with a
    50 percent market penetration.
        And then, of course, these vehicles will provide increased
    mobility for the disabled, for children, for the elderly,
    segments of the population that did not previously have access
    to this level of mobility, and that could provide tremendous
    economic benefits for society.
        And so we estimate that with simply a 50 percent market
    penetration, comprehensive costs will save approximately $3,320
    annually per vehicle, and of course, there are over 250 million
    vehicles in the United States today. So those numbers add up
    pretty quickly.
        However, there are substantial barriers to implementing
    autonomous vehicles and achieving that 50 percent market
    penetration. The cost is going to be the biggest one. We
    estimate an initial cost will be approximately $100,000 per
    vehicle upon market entry. That is obviously beyond the reach
    of the average America. That cost is going to have to come down
    for us to achieve these benefits.
        Second, there are no current standards in place for
    licensing and liability for these vehicles. We are going to
    have to get that done in order to achieve these benefits.
        And then, third, the security and privacy concerns need to
    be addressed. You need to make sure that no one can hack into
    the system and potentially create problems that way, and of
    course, privacy is always an issue for people who are driving
    or riding in autonomous vehicles.
        Therefore, we propose the following policy recommendations:
        One, we need to expand autonomous vehicle research in order
    to figure out how to get that cost down. That is probably the
    number one priority.
        Number two, we need to begin developing Federal guidelines
    for licensing of autonomous vehicles. That has to happen now
    because these vehicles could potentially be on the road by the
    end of the decade, and we want to be able to take advantage of
    them as quickly as possible in order to capitalize on these
    benefits.
        Number three, we need to being determining appropriate
    standards for liability, security and data privacy. That also
    is something that we can start on right away.
        So in conclusion, the benefits from autonomous vehicles are
    substantial, but the barriers that exist are also substantial.
    We do feel that these can be overcome. However, even before
    full automation, there are substantial benefits that can be
    achieved from simply adopting many of these technologies that
    we have talked about today.
        And through expanding research and creating effective
    standards and regulations for autonomous vehicles, we have the
    opportunity to take advantage of these benefits sooner rather
    than later, but we must seize that opportunity or otherwise we
    could potentially let these economic benefits slip away.
        Thank you so much for having me here today, Chairman Petri
    and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank
    you all for your testimony.
        I guess I will start off the questioning. One issue that I
    wanted Administrator Strickland to address, we engaged in a
    little correspondence earlier, and it has to do with the
    statutory authority of NHTSA to issue regulations. It clearly
    has the authority to issue regulations concerning the safety of
    autonomous vehicles, but I understand it is considering
    guidelines regarding portable electronic devices, such as GPS
    navigation systems and other smartphones and other mobile
    communication devices which are not integrated into the vehicle
    but are used in the vehicle and out of the vehicle.
        Do you have legislative authority to do that now or do we
    need to address that to figure out how that works within our
    congressional division of responsibility?
        Questions are being raised in the industry, and I wondered
    if you have a response or are preparing one to that.
        Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. We are actually preparing a
    formal response for your letter, but I am happy to sort of give
    you an outline of the agency's authority in this area.
        The core is through the Motor Vehicle Safety Act where we
    have the statutory authority to clearly regulate, you know, the
    full automobile on road, public road automobiles, as well you
    know, and including medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.
        But it also reaches to motor vehicle equipment. Now, that
    would cross a span of devices and technologies. More
    specifically, your letter asked the question regarding portable
    devices, things such as, you know, a Samsung Galaxy or an
    iPhone, and our authority does reach to those applications on
    those devices that can be classified as motor vehicle
    equipment, and, Mr. Chairman, that is actually a very broad
    scope of issues. I mean things like, you know, navigation on an
    iPhone.
        If you see the iPhone application has three tabs. One has a
    person walking for walking navigation. One has one for transit
    for transit directions, but there is also one for a car. That
    is a piece of motor vehicle equipment. I think we have very
    strong precedent to be able to make that extension.
        In addition to that, there are applications that may not be
    specifically designed or intended for use in the vehicle, but
    can be reasonably expected to be used in a driving environment.
    Those are also motor vehicle equipment. While, you know, that
    authority is not limitless in that area, it is very broad, and
    we plan to work collaboratively not only with the
    manufacturers, which we already have, but with those device
    manufacturers, application manufacturers through our work in
    guidelines in order to make sure that all of these things are
    working in the proper zone of safety.
        Mr. Petri. Well, it is an interesting area that is a little
    bit new because of the way computer technology has evolved and
    things being small and multipurpose, and so on. We want to
    obviously be sensitive to this. The primary requirement is
    safety of the vehicle, but to have too broad a regulation where
    it is inappropriate because something might be carried on a
    vehicle raises issues as well.
        So I am glad you are taking an interagency approach and
    have to be doing a lot of consulting with the industry and
    other experts to figure out how to prevent us from snarling
    things up.
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Just as one
    follow-on, I just want to actually thank not only some of the
    witnesses here at the table and their companies, but a lot of
    others. The goal for us ultimately in the fight against
    distracted driving in the opinion of the agency is a
    technological breakthrough, being able to identify the driver
    from the passenger, having the driver have to interlock their
    device or pair their device with the vehicle with a good, safe
    driving, you know, display that follows our in-vehicle
    guidelines, and allowing the passenger to play as many games of
    Angry Bird as they want.
        Once we get there, I think that we have the opportunity to
    have a tremendous safety breakthrough, but if it is achievable,
    we all need to work together on that, and I appreciate your
    support and your question on that, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Robinson, you mentioned one concrete thing we could do
    is to make sure that to the extent we can, working with the
    States, that there is good marking on highways, and that is
    obviously of importance for safety in any event. But could you
    explain why that is important or how soon that needs to be done
    so far as these innovations are concerned?
        Mr. Robinson. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    question.
        When you realize that many of these systems cue off of
    visuals that are provided by cameras, the lane markings become
    very important to your operation of these systems. So the
    better the markings, the more effective the systems are.
        And for that reason if you have older roads that do not
    have markings that have been painted in anyone's recent memory
    or you have weather conditions that get in the way of being
    able to track the markings, you can have difficulty. That is
    why the driver is so important at all times.
        But it is a basic matter of being able to see the lines by
    the cameras that are on the vehicles.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        I have other questions, but I think I will submit them for
    the record and call on Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this very interesting meeting.
        I have so many questions. First, it is hard for me to
    fathom a car in New York City being without a driver. I mean,
    it is hard enough with a driver.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sires. So you know, trying to visualize this is very
    difficult.
        The other question that I had is, you know, I worked on the
    fixing up of the E-Z Pass in New Jersey, and people were
    concerned that they were being tracked. I assume that with this
    car it is a lot easier to be tracked, and I think that is one
    of the questions that you are going to have to address because
    it was big issue trying to deal with the E-Z Pass and finding
    this thing.
        The other thing is I am interested in the retrofit of the
    highways. Mr. Steudle, you said you would have to do some work
    there. Can you just talk a little bit about that?
        What does it entail? You know, how much money is it going
    to cost? You know, do we have to place signals on the highway?
        Mr. Steudle. Actually, there is an analysis underway.
    AASHTO is developing what is called a footprint analysis. What
    would the need for highway retrofit look like? Frankly, it
    depends on what the final technology looks like.
        If we had done this 6 or 7 years ago, the estimate would
    have been significantly higher because at that point they were
    talking about roadside units every quarter mile, which was,
    frankly, just not possible to do.
        So I think now you are looking at basically traffic signals
    that have some form of technology in them that can communicate
    with the vehicles as they are driving down the road.
        I think once the technology standard is set, some of the
    prices will come down. It is very difficult to tell you that it
    is going to cost this much money today because the technology
    is changing so fast. We are learning through the model
    deployment safety pilot, which the U.S. DOT has underway in Ann
    Arbor, Michigan, is about what the infrastructure needs are
    really, how far these traffic signals can actually communicate,
    and we are finding that they actually are more efficient at a
    distance twice as far as what we originally intended them to
    be.
        So it is a work in progress, but I suspect that where you
    are going to see the initial technology is in traffic signals
    where you have a communications backbone that links back into
    our traffic management systems.
        Mr. Sires. Are these any sensors that you are going to have
    to put on the highway? Do you know what I mean?
        Mr. Steudle. The traffic signal is a dedicated short-range
    communication radio. It is a transmitter that would receive. It
    is the same frequency that vehicles-to-vehicles use, but then
    it is from the vehicle to the infrastructure and back to the
    vehicle. So, it basically is a receiver and a transmitter in
    the traffic signal.
        The reason you select a traffic signal is because that is
    where the collision points are located most frequently.
        Mr. Sires. You know, I used to have a 1965 Mustang that I
    did a lot of work on, you know, many years ago. I cannot
    imagine anybody doing any work on these cars that are so
    sophisticated, and to me I think it is just going to put people
    out of work. You are going to have to send these cars back to
    the shop. I cannot see anybody doing work on these things. I
    mean you have to be so sophisticated, and I guess that is where
    we are headed.
        Can anybody tell me if we are going to put people out of
    work?
        Mr. Steudle. Well, I definitely would defer to the OEMs on
    the panel----
        Mr. Sires. You can pass that around.
        Mr. Steudle [continuing]. To speak to the ability of shade
    tree mechanics. However, the one great thing about electronic
    systems, they do actually create efficiencies and improve
    safety in all vehicles. Yes, it may be beyond an individual
    shade tree mechanic today to change your oil and take a look at
    your braking system--the type of thing you could do on a 1965
    Mustang. But, we do have the ability, frankly, to achieve
    improvements in fuel economy, improvements in safety, and
    reduction of costs for all of these things, which are enabled
    by new electronic systems.
        Mr. Sires. All that stuff just tells me it will put more
    people out of work. But, you know, I get it. It is the future.
    That is where we are headed. You know, I am just trying to
    figure it in the next few decades what is going to happen.
        Can you just talk about it a little, Mr. Robinson?
        Mr. Robinson. Certainly, Congressman Sires.
        And, by the way, I suspend disbelief whenever I am in New
    York City, too. I close my eyes a lot in the back of a cab. It
    is not autonomous driving, but it is close.
        This is technology that, quite frankly, is going to be
    liberating, and I understand your concerns, but we are talking
    about a future state where I think the technology is actually
    going to have the reverse effect on the one you are concerned
    about. I think it is going to create jobs ultimately.
        I think all of these technologies are going to require
    technicians. They are going to require people capable of
    working on these systems, and it is different than the state we
    have today or with the old cars that I have worked on as well.
    But I think this is actually going to be a liberating thing in
    the final analysis.
        Mr. Sires. Right. Thank you.
        I mean, I think this is very exciting the more I read about
    it, but it is just scary to me anyway.
        Thank you very much for being here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Ribble.
        Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    everyone on the panel. This has been really interesting.
        Mr. Christensen, I just want to talk a little bit about Wi-
    Fi and the amount of demand that, as we picture this in the
    future, how much demand there is going to be. I understand that
    efforts are underway to find a compromise so that Wi-Fi
    consumers can share the unlicensed band of a spectrum with
    Government transportation agencies and auto companies.
        Since the DSRC technology is not yet on the road, there is
    an opportunity to develop both systems to allow efficient use
    of the band. Would you be open to accepting modifications to
    the industry's plans if this flexibility were to allow
    efficient use of the band and avoid interference?
        Mr. Christensen. So thank you for your question,
    Congressman.
        This is a key area. The ban that was set aside for DSRC is
    critical. It was set aside for vehicle safety. So we feel that
    is very important to maintain that band. We understand that
    there are other uses out there, other individuals who would
    like to utilize that band. There may be a possible for some
    sharing opportunity, but that would require extensive testing
    and guaranteeing that there would be no interference or cross-
    talk across the band because, again, you are talking about
    Internet access for an individual or safety in a vehicle, and
    of course, we are prioritizing that safety.
        Mr. Ribble. Yes, I mean, the FCC has identified 75 million
    hertz of spectrum, which is more than the amount used today by
    billions of Wi-Fi devices. It seems fairly large, and I am just
    curious if the automotive manufacturing industry is willing or
    interested in putting any ideas on the table to make the band
    use more equalized across all uses in the country.
        Mr. Christensen. We have been involved with the discussion
    and are very interested to understand more and, again, do this
    testing and understand what the possibilities may be, but we
    need to be very careful in this area and truly understand what
    type of cross-talk or what type of issues we could have in this
    area, and again, weigh those priorities and really understand
    before we move forward or before we make any changes or give up
    some of that spectrum to make sure that, yes, it is a
    significant amount of bandwidth, but we also need those
    protections on either side of the band that we are working to
    guarantee that the system is functional.
        Mr. Ribble. OK. Good. Thank you for those comments.
        Mr. Robinson, just a quick question for you. In your
    testimony you said that we need to provide an environment that
    promotes the development and implementation of these
    technologies in the U.S. rather than other countries. Can you
    expound on that a little bit?
        Mr. Robinson. Sure. What I am specifically referring to,
    Congressman, is creating an environment where the risk
    associated with putting these systems on the road is not so
    prohibitive that it becomes a disabler so that we are not
    forced to go first to Europe or China or some other location
    where we have a better environment. That is all we are
    concerned about.
        And I realize that presents some real challenges because it
    is new territory for all of us, but I think it really will be
    an enabler if we can find a balance with technologies that have
    been tested and regulated ultimately and that comply with those
    regulations to be used in this country without undue burden and
    risk associated with trying them here first.
        Mr. Ribble. You speak specifically of your concern about
    frivolous litigation for systems that meet performance
    requirements and relevant Government operating standards. Are
    you looking for some type of assistance there?
        If you build something that complies with the performance
    requirements and standards, that you want protection from the
    litigation; is that what you are looking for?
        Mr. Robinson. Yes. I don't have all the answers,
    Congressman, but I think that some balance that would recognize
    the compliance with the regulated systems that we are talking
    about ultimately and not having to worry about frivolous
    litigation.
        I do not want to sound cynical about this, but we are the
    most litigated industry you can find, and it should not shock
    anyone to know that that becomes a factor in the way we think
    about where to deploy and learn out these systems. So we are
    not looking for a pass. We are looking for being responsible
    and stepping up to our obligations, but at the same time of
    having a reasonable opportunity to not be overexposed, if you
    will, for building systems that are compliant with Federal
    standards.
        Mr. Ribble. All right. Thank you.
        And you are testifying before Congress. So your cynicism is
    warranted here. I thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Ms. Esty.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
    holding this hearing and for all of our witnesses for helping
    us with this very critical issue.
        We have heard a lot about the benefits of this technology.
    So I would like to turn to the challenges that we face and how
    those of us here in Congress can be constructively part of
    addressing those challenges.
        Broadly speaking, I see two major challenges. One has to do
    with affordability, and the other has to with consumer
    acceptance, and some of you have referenced both of those
    issues.
        If consumers do not trust the technology, they will not
    adopt it, and if it is too expensive, they also will not adopt
    it. So we have some challenges around that.
        So for Mr. Strickland, NHTSA has introduced some
    preliminary statements about the timeframe to achieve vehicle
    automation, and if you could talk a little bit more about what
    it is going to take between level zero and level five, do you
    have the resources to proceed through these stages?
        What is going to be necessary for the timeframe to achieve
    the 2020 or into the 2020s, depending on which of our witnesses
    you are talking about, to achieve the level of confidence that
    we would need to have on the public's part?
        Mr. Strickland. Well, Congresswoman, we have laid out a
    research plan over the next 4 years to talk about preparing for
    the automated future at the various levels. While we at this
    point see level five of automation, which is a fully autonomous
    vehicle being far off in the future, clearly there are lots of
    components, including things that are on the road today, which
    are the foundations which can improve safety.
        We do have adequate resources right now for us to do the
    research that is underway. Clearly, as more advances and,
    frankly, new innovations, new technologies come onboard, we
    will clearly have to always reevaluate our plans as to making
    sure that we are prepared, but the work plan, our new Office
    for Electronics that we have started at NHTSA, in addition to a
    number of other pieces of work that we are doing at the Vehicle
    Research and Test Center out in East Liberty, Ohio, we are very
    prepared to be able to work with the industry to be able to
    create a level playing field for safety and innovation so that
    we can see this automated future come to fruition.
        Ms. Esty. Anyone else with thoughts on this?
        Mr. Robinson. Congresswoman, I guess I would like to
    address your observation about cost. It is true a lot of these
    systems initially are expensive. On our products, for instance,
    a lot of these have been introduced in Cadillacs--adaptive
    cruise control, crash mitigation braking--but it has not taken
    long for us to now introduce those same technologies in a
    Chevrolet. The new Impala has these same technologies.
        These are the building blocks upon which the kinds of
    future state that we are talking about can be engineered. So I
    think while there is always initially a high cost with the
    introduction of these systems, I think over time, and by the
    way, the customers love these systems, they are very intuitive,
    and they work, and you do not have to learn over again how to
    drive a vehicle.
        So I think part of the socialization process that you are
    concerned about is going to take place naturally as these
    become more and more mainstream building blocks that allow for
    the ultimate state that we are talking about.
        Ms. Esty. And I would like to turn for a moment, also
    having just come out of the Science Committee where we are
    spending a lot of time looking at cybersecurity. There has been
    a reference early already today about privacy concerns of which
    obviously we are hearing a great deal right now. If some of you
    could address the concerns about cybersecurity, what will we
    need to develop to ensure that no one can actually misdirect
    intentionally these systems?
        Because obviously that will certainly shatter consumer
    confidence if we are not simultaneously thinking about how
    these interactive systems can protect against cyber attack.
        Mr. Strickland. I will begin, Congresswoman. We at NHTSA
    recognize this has to be bedrock. In order for us to have a
    reliable system, it has to be rigorous against electronic
    attacks. It also has to be beyond Six Sigma reliable as the
    auto industry already does. We are working very hard internally
    to be able to work with the automakers to figure out what that
    level of protection needs to be.
        One issue which is new for us but clearly we are very
    capable of the task is that before we always set our
    performance standards, you know, here is the miles per gallon
    you have to achieve, you know, for the CAFE standard.
        For electronics and cybersecurity, we are likely going to
    be looking at process standards. What are the processes the
    manufacturers have undertaken to test their systems to the
    certainty and reliability of what an anticipated attack would
    be?
        And you know, while I would love to be able to say this is
    more of a futuristic notion, we are seeing it today. You know,
    there are automakers that now have the ability to actually
    change vehicle performance, you know, and actual mechanics
    through pushes from the Web, and so we have this today.
        So clearly, the manufacturers from a liability and
    reliability standpoint have to address it in their own business
    plans, but for us as an agency, we clearly have to have a
    process to make sure that those standards are, you know, best
    for the driving public.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. I have some other questions,
    but I will submit them, other than just to say to the doctor,
    please keep advocating for basic research and development, and
    I hope all of you will continue to sound the importance of that
    in order for these technologies to be able to be rolled out in
    the consumer sector.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Hanna.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman.
        I have a basic question. I find all of this fascinating,
    and, Mr. Schank, you mentioned the $3,220 per car. You think
    maybe roughly $100,000.
        Mr. Robinson, the automobile no matter how less expensive
    it becomes through whatever means, mass production, et cetera,
    growth in demand, it will never be less expensive than a basic
    automobile without this.
        I guess I am interested in anybody's answer about what
    those incentives might be for an individual to spend more money
    on a car in which they have to be--maybe I am mistaken in
    this--but at least equally alert and engaged as they would with
    their normal car that we drive today.
        I guess what I am asking you is: what are the demand
    dynamics in this?
        Societal costs aside because for the moment we are not
    buying people automobiles; they buy their own. So it is fair to
    say they are not a big part of the component. So maybe, Mr.
    Robinson, since you are in the business.
        Mr. Robinson. Well, Congressman, your observation that
    people buy what they need when they want is a fair one. You
    know, the average age of an automobile today is over 10 years.
    People, first of all, have high-quality vehicles for the most
    part, and so they are able to drive them longer, but the truth
    is, I mean, if we implement all of these technologies tomorrow,
    it would still take 10 or 11 years for the natural process if
    people were able to buy these vehicles right now.
        I do not have the answer to your question about what the
    demand levels are going to be ultimately because, quite
    frankly, we are not smart enough today to know precisely in 5
    or 6 or 7 years how these technologies are going to evolve and
    what the cost is likely to be.
        Dr. Schank gave you some numbers from his research. I am in
    no position to talk to those numbers other than to tell you
    that as we look at other systems that have been put on vehicles
    over years, the cost will come down over time if it is a system
    that people value.
        People have shown----
        Mr. Hanna. Well, that is my point. What is your view of the
    value of this to anyone in this room?
        Mr. Robinson. I look at it in building blocks. We are
    trying to bite this thing off in pieces because we are not
    looking at what are we going to price 10 years from now. We are
    looking at what systems do we have today that add value, and
    that is why we talk about things like adaptive cruise control,
    crash mitigation, braking, those types of things, because
    people value them. We can do them at a cost and provide a value
    that people are prepared to pay for it, and we have had great
    customer experience.
        So I think that is the model on which we will build.
        Mr. Hanna. So that is a marginal thing, but this is
    actually a big leap to go to automated vehicle.
        Mr. Robinson. Sure. It is a leap built on many steps.
        Mr. Hanna. Right. Mr. Schank is chomping at the bit there,
    I think.
        Mr. Schank. Yes. Well, I think there are some real benefits
    to drivers from spending a little bit extra to potentially
    reduce the chances of being involved in a fatal crash and
    potentially reduce their fuel consumption, but maybe a more
    obvious one that we have not talked about is the potential for
    these vehicles to go and park themselves, which is something
    that I think all of us would find convenient if you are going
    somewhere and you do not have to worry about parking because
    the vehicle will just go off and park itself.
        But then the second possibility is that the dependent
    populations that currently do not have access to automobiles
    will be very glad to adopt this technology, the elderly,
    disabled, and potentially even children.
        But I would like to point out, and I do not know what the
    manufacturers think about this, but some of our research
    indicates that it is possible that the total number of vehicles
    on the road may decrease as a result of the introduction of
    autonomous vehicles because so many vehicles will be available
    for use when there is no driver in them. So you can have
    greater sharing of vehicles and people will not necessarily
    need to own as many vehicles as they currently do today. So
    that is another interesting question to think about.
        Mr. Hanna. So I dial a number and the car shows up, and I
    get in and I leave it wherever I got out.
        Yes, sir.
        Dr. Rajkumar. It is very tempting to think of a driverless
    car as this revolutionary endpoint. It is an evolution when it
    happens. It is not a question of if, but when. But the progress
    towards the endpoint will consist of multiple intermediate
    milestones where a car is more aware of what is happening
    around it, and even if the driver is not paying attention for
    whatever reason, such as distracted driving, tiredness,
    sleepiness and so on, the car will basically be able to prevent
    an accident from happening rather than drifting off of the lane
    or going off of a cliff. All of those accidents will be
    prevented. So every driver will basically be able and willing
    to spend a few thousand dollars more to get those capabilities
    in place.
        Humans can be very smart, of course, but they can also be
    very stupid at times. Basically this technology will prevent
    humans from hurting themselves.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        This has been an interesting hearing, and I kind of looked
    at it as ``Star Wars'' when I heard about it. I still think
    about it somewhat that way.
        I remember back in the 1980s I was in the Tennessee Senate,
    and a fellow came up to me and he told me that this man named
    Frank Gorrell was representing this company and they were going
    to have phones like Dick Tracy, and everybody was going to have
    one, and I thought he was absolutely out of his mind.
        Thinking back upon that, yes, I envision the day we will
    have these vehicles, like the Flintstones or something, but--
    who, the Jetsons? Yes, that is the opposite.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        I did not watch those things.
        But I am kind of thinking about like you said it was great,
    you know, the car. I was thinking I go to Contral and you have
    to find a place to park, and you just get out and let the car
    go. How does the car know where it says ``no parking from 4
    o'clock to 6 o'clock'' or all the myriad signs, Dr. Schank? How
    does the car know that, or which lot to go to?
        Mr. Schank. Well, presumably you could have the vehicle go
    back to your house depending on how long you are planning on
    being there. So you cannot think about the constraints of the
    existing system necessarily being that way.
        But also presumably we would have to change our parking
    policies to some degree in order to adapt to these
    technologies, and we are already moving in that direction. I
    mean, parking is becoming more automated. I usually pay for my
    parking by phone. I do not pay by coins at the meter anymore,
    and so as you continue to be able to do that, you are going to
    have more interaction between computers, and they are going to
    be able to communicate with each other about when you can park
    in a certain space.
        Mr. Cohen. So they will just have to have some kind of
    governor so that there will be a beep and will know that you
    cannot park here because it is the wrong time?
        How will it know an emergency vehicle?
        They will all be coded, I guess.
        Mr. Schank. Right. There is going to have to be a greater
    integration of these technologies with existing technologies so
    they can communicate with each other about that type of basic
    information.
        Mr. Cohen. And just as Representative Sires was concerned
    about the loss of jobs, what are municipal governments going to
    do without being able to manufacture funds from parking tickets
    and traffic offenses?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cohen. You are going to ruin the basic structure of
    municipal government. It is just a thought I had.
        I got a ticket and I went to court on it, which was a
    mistake, I guess, for parking more than 12 inches from the
    curb, which I did not know was even the law, and I do not think
    I did it. But the car is going to know 12 inches?
        I mean, how is the car going to know the Memphis City code?
        Mr. Schank. These are all challenges that are interesting
    to think about, but certainly can be overcome. You could, for
    example, have the car to be programmed with the code. It could
    easily be programmed with the code of any city you might
    presumably go to, just like you have GPS systems that cover the
    entire country right now or the world, and you can drive your
    car anywhere and it knows exactly what the roads look like.
        So it is plausible to introduce that kind of information.
        Mr. Cohen. I guess it is, Doctor, but when you suggest that
    the car would go home to park, that mitigates against the idea
    of saving fuel, you know.
        Did any of you all make Web sites maybe since you are
    working on this? Maybe you could kind of back off for a couple
    of months and help us with the Affordable Care Act.
        Mr. Schank. The car might go home to park though because
    someone else needs to use it at home to go somewhere while you
    are at the restaurant. So it could be an efficiency as well.
        Mr. Cohen. You mean I would give my car to somebody else?
        Mr. Schank. In your family. Let us say your wife wanted to
    use it while you were at the restaurant, you know, and she
    needs to go somewhere.
        Mr. Cohen. Who would I be at the restaurant with?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cohen. You certainly have a futuristic society, Dr.
    Schank.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Christensen. Congressman, if I could just interject
    real quickly, another area from a parking standpoint is with
    EVs and the proliferation of EVs. Obviously infrastructure is
    still going to be limited. We are trying to get more
    infrastructure for charging, but one of the areas we are
    looking at is having an EV be able to seek out that charging
    location and automatically charge itself in those conditions,
    again, with the limited funds that are going to be available
    for the proliferation of infrastructure. How can we make the
    cars seek out that infrastructure that it is looking at? So
    another area of research.
        Mr. Cohen. I can see a lot of benefits, and the thing about
    the drunk drivers, I mean, that is 40 percent of them. The
    problem is those people do not know they are drunk when they
    get behind the wheel, and we have already got like ignition
    interlock devices and difficulty of getting judges to require
    those to be put on the vehicle.
        I guess it would work, but some of these technologies will
    just help with driving in general. Do you not already have
    these braking systems and fuel saving mechanisms that would
    already work like on trucks now? Are they that compatible?
        Like in New York, I cannot imagine what will happen with
    the immigrant population if you have automatic driving all the
    cabs. They do a great job. I do not see how they could be any
    better.
        Anyway, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. How do you follow my good colleague, Mr. Cohen
    from Tennessee? There you go.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Davis. Thanks for being here, first of all. A very
    interesting discussion. I obviously agree with my colleague,
    Mr. Cohen, that some things that we may not be able to see as
    futuristic actually become reality like cell phones. I have
    some concerns representing a rural district similar to when
    cell phones became active in society. The rural areas fell
    behind. The rural areas did not have the new technology or
    access to new technology like we do now.
        I hope that through testing, research and development,
    autonomous vehicles can get to the point where they can
    understand the Memphis City Code.
        Now, I do not think Mr. Cohen understands the Memphis City
    Code, but that is OK. That is OK, but I do have some concerns.
    First off, while I have you here, Mr. Strickland, I know it
    does not necessarily have everything to do with the autonomous
    vehicles, but just a few years ago electric vehicles were
    discussed as new and innovative, and I saw a story come out
    today in Bloomberg about Tesla and about three electrical fires
    with Tesla.
        I am concerned. I want to make sure that NHTSA holds
    Tesla's accountability standards to the same standards they
    have done with Chevy Volt in the past instance and also with
    Fisker's Karma plug-in.
        Can you tell me what the next step is in NHTSA's
    investigation and process into Tesla's three fires?
        Mr. Strickland. Oh, certainly, Congressman. First and
    foremost, NHTSA holds all of our manufacturers, tier one
    supplies, and equipment supplies equal before the law. So we
    follow the same process in our defects investigations in the
    same way every single time.
        This morning it was probably announced that we opened a
    formal investigation into the Tesla Model S. While there are
    three fires in total, there are only two that happened in the
    United States. One is in Mexico, and the reason why the agency
    moved forward to open a formal investigation is that we looked
    at, you know, the damage patterns and the issues for those two
    crashes.
        The first crash in Seattle, Washington, looked anomalous,
    and that is why we at that point were pre-investigatory and
    took no formal action.
        The second crash and fire in Tennessee had a number of
    similarities, therefore, two being a trend and we clearly saw
    some issues. We decided to open a formal investigation, which
    is we are going to look at whether or not the Tesla Model S
    countermeasures in dealing with road hazards are adequate, and
    whether or not it poses an unreasonable risk to safety. We are
    working very closely with Tesla.
        My understanding is that Mr. Musk has already said he will
    be very happy to cooperate with our investigation, which we
    always appreciate. When we come to our final conclusions, we
    will definitely report them publicly and be happy to report
    back to the committee on what we found.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.
        A question not Mr. Robinson. Do you anticipate that with
    the progress in automated vehicles, that they would be all
    electric, hybrid, gasoline, or would it just be a piece of
    technology that would put on any vehicle that would sell out of
    a dealership?
        Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think it depends on how the vehicle is going to be used,
    quite frankly. To the point about being in a rural versus an
    urban area, a lot of the technologies that we have been talking
    about as building blocks, adaptive cruise control, automatic
    braking, those are on our new trucks. So it is not just urban
    vehicles that we are talking about here.
        And, two, I think to your point about what this enables
    from an engineering standpoint down the road, I do think
    ultimately if you get to a point where you can take out further
    weight on vehicles because of the fact that the vehicles are
    not crashing anymore, it liberates the engineers to come up
    with all kinds of propulsion solutions to fossil fuels.
        So down the road, sure, there are all kinds of opportunity
    for that to come into play. I think it is probably something we
    have not focused on so much here. We talk a lot about safety,
    which is a huge issue, but I think it does create more options
    for all of us in terms of how the vehicles are propelled down
    the roadways.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you.
        And I agree. I mean, I think we already have this
    technology in many of the large pieces of farm machinery. In
    Illinois where I live, they are out in our fields on a regular
    basis. So the potential is here. I just want to make sure that
    a lot of that potential is further researched and developed;
    that we take into consideration not just the congested cities.
        Because like my colleague, Mr. Sires, I, too, will be
    amazed when an automated vehicle goes through New York City,
    but I think we would all be more amazed for an automated
    vehicle to go through my home town of Taylorville, Illinois, or
    11,000 people.
        So if we can continue to put a focus on the rural areas,
    too, during this discussion, I would sincerely appreciate it.
        And I do not have any time left, Mr. Chairman. So I cannot
    yield back.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am proud to say that while some of my colleagues are
    amazed at this new technology and titillated by its
    possibilities, the State of Nevada is on top of this. We were
    the first State--often we are the first--to actually adopt a
    law to regulate these kinds of vehicles, the use of autonomous
    on our roads. We did that back in 2011.
        And then in the past legislative session, we passed Senate
    Bill 313 that looked at some aspects of this technology like
    minimum insurance coverage and other key factors for those who
    want to permit a vehicle for testing. So we are already moving
    down this road, and I am glad to see that the Federal
    Government is taking an interest in it.
        In the past, we know that the Federal Government has
    regulated different safety aspects of both vehicle construction
    and vehicle use, whether it is seat belts or speed limits or
    DUI limitations, things that have saved lots of lives and lots
    of money.
        So I would ask you: what can we do at the Federal level to
    help States begin to plan for this technology because it moves
    very quickly?
        And also, as we move into looking at the next
    transportation authorization, are there any things we need to
    build into that in advance so that we are not playing catchup
    and trying to fix things after the fact as this technology
    moves ahead?
        And I would just ask any of you to address that. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Steudle. Congresswoman, I would be happy to address
    that. I think as you look forward to reauthorization of MAP-21
    next year, one of the most important things is, as many of my
    colleagues have said, we need to continue the research piece.
    We are close in some aspects, but we still have a long way to
    go. There is a lot more evolution needed for this whole
    initiative.
        Therefore I think that within MAP-21 we need a strong
    statement of continued research in this area.
        As far as actions that I think the Federal Government could
    take from a regulatory perspective, the model legislation that
    NHTSA has prepared is a great start. I would agree with my
    friend from General Motors that we can do this 50 States one at
    a time. We need to undertake this as one country. We need to
    say these are the requirements that we need as a country for
    autonomous vehicles, whether in the testing phase or in the
    operations phase so that everybody knows that when you are
    driving a vehicle from Michigan to Ohio and all the way to
    Nevada that you have the same requirements. That is going to be
    very, very important and, frankly, that could be part of the
    reauthorization component as well.
        I do think that reauthorization of MAP-21 needs to address
    the technology components, where we are going, and reserve
    funding for future research.
        Ms. Titus. Mr. Strickland?
        Mr. Strickland. Actually, Congresswoman, I was the only one
    to actually thank your colleagues and the leadership in the
    State of Nevada because actually as they were preparing their
    work in 2011, they asked NHTSA for technical advice, and we
    actually were able to provide a good amount of assistance for
    them in their process and path going forward. So we really do
    appreciate, you know, including the Federal-State relationship
    and be able to developing that.
        I think Kirk noted a couple of things that we are still in
    a research mode, and I think for all of us, in order to make
    sure that we have all of the components right, electronic
    reliability right, performance right, ultimately consumer
    acceptance, the foundation of research has to be solid because
    at the end of the day with a new piece of technology, the whiz-
    bang notion is the first line of headlines, and the second
    headline is unfortunately that one of these systems does not
    perform as expected and is part of a crash or is responsible
    for a crash.
        So for us, we need to make sure that the State as test-
    beds, you know, and the leadership of your State and the great
    State of Michigan, California and others in terms of creating
    the right test-beds and the right environment is an important
    aspect of it, but clearly being able to evolve and develop the
    policy underpinnings is important as well, as Kirk noted.
        Ms. Titus. Anybody else?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Strickland, while I have you, I wrote a letter to you
    about the Focus Cities Program, since we are talking about
    safety and that is about safety and pedestrian safety. Could we
    get together afterwards or something so I can get a response
    back from you about my question?
        Mr. Strickland. My pleasure, absolutely.
        Ms. Titus. I will not take up time with this hearing, but
    since I have you here.
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Titus. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Williams.
        Mr. Williams. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank all of you for being here today.
        And full disclosure, number one, I am from Texas. Number
    two is I am a car dealer. My family has been in the automobile
    business 39 and I have been in it for 43 years, GM, Chrysler,
    some other I do not would not tell you about, but so far back.
    Listening to this testimony, the first Biscayne I sold when I
    was a kid, the power steering was an option. So was a radio,
    and now here we are talking about this.
        But my first question would be to you, Mr. Strickland, just
    real quickly. You touched on Tesla. You know, Tesla has a
    checkered history in Texas, and one of the things I did not
    hear you say when we were talking about it, was this
    investigation that you are conducting, was it requested by
    Tesla?
        Mr. Strickland. No, sir. Our investigatory process is
    independent. It is confidential as well. We go through a review
    of the data, and then we make a determination whether a formal
    investigation is needed.
        After we have made that formal determination, we then reach
    out to the manufacturer usually 48 to 72 hours before we post
    something on the public Web site to inform them that we are
    opening an investigation, and of course, we ask and hope that
    they would collaborate and they will work with us through the
    investigatory process so we can come to a determination which
    is right for the safety of the driving public and clearly fair
    to the automaker.
        Mr. Williams. And it is important that everybody is on a
    level playing field.
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely.
        Mr. Williams. I wanted to bring that up.
        The other thing is, Mr. Robinson, I appreciate your
    comments. Being in the business, when you talk about let the
    market work, make what the customers and the dealers want to
    sell, and frivolous regulations, litigations are killing the
    industry in many cases. I appreciate your comments to
    continually remind the Government that those are big options to
    the free market.
        And I also would remind you and humbly ask you to make sure
    your captive finance company is willing to finance these
    vehicle. That is important.
        The other thing, too, I would ask you, Mr. Christensen, is
    we talk about insurance. What does the insurance company say
    about this? How are you going to get insurance? How are you
    going to rate an insurance with no driver? How are these cars
    going to be insured?
        Mr. Christensen. That is a key issue moving forward,
    Congressman. I do not know that any of us really have the
    answer to that question at this point, but moving forward we
    want to work together and continue that dialogue and understand
    what this means for our customers, what the technology is able
    to do and what it means for the insurance companies so we can
    work together and answer that question.
        Mr. Williams. Yes, that is a an important issue.
        Mr. Christensen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Williams. And then, Dr. Schank, thank for you
    testimony. I would just say this to you. A hundred thousand
    dollars is a lot of money for one car. The car business is a
    volume business.
        But I will also go back and we have seen cars from the
    early 1970s, $3,000 up to $60,000, higher now, but that is a
    scary number. So you are going to have to work on that.
        The other things is, too, where I come from in Texas, and
    we touched a little bit about this, in all seriousness,
    something like this is going to have to be able to pull a horse
    trailer, and it just cannot be moving around finding people
    parking spots. If it is going to work and the customer wants
    it, it is going to have to be able to serve and it is going to
    have to be able to have some towing capabilities, if you know
    what I mean.
        And the other thing is I was not happy with your testimony
    when you talked about it might put fewer vehicles on the road.
    That is not what Mr. Robinson and I want to hear I do not think
    when you are in the business. But I do think technology is
    growing and probably we are heading in this direction, but cost
    is going to be important, how we are going to insure it, and I
    do think we talked about earlier in the year there was concern
    for jobs, and I am all about jobs, but I believe that as we
    move forward this will actually add jobs because we have seen
    in the last 40 years more technology brings in a much newer
    level of technician. No longer are these people wrenches, as we
    used to call them. They are high-skilled technology people, and
    I think it will actually add jobs.
        But from a person who is going to sell and get it right and
    make sure I can get them financed, would you do that, Mr.
    Robinson?
        But I appreciate your testimony and thank you for being
    here, and I yield back.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        One of the disadvantages of being chairman sometimes is
    that you have to stay at a whole hearing. One of the advantages
    is that you get to ask a few more questions at the end if you
    would like, and on this particular occasion I do.
        One observation first. You mentioned how this technology is
    gradually being layered in, and in fact, has been for a number
    of years, and I think evidence of that is that the number of
    deaths on the Nation's highways has been dropping very
    significantly over the last 10 or 15 years. It used to be in
    the neighborhood of 40,000 or 50,000 a year, and now it is in
    the neighborhood of 30,000 to 40,000. So that is a long way to
    go to zero, but it is a huge improvement, as our population has
    been growing and all the rest of it.
        Secondly, we never really discussed the implications of
    this, and this may not be the place to ask about it, but for
    the commercial trucking industry, clearly this is technology
    that will make it easier for drivers. It will also help people
    driving commercial vehicles if it is deployed on them.
        We have been tightening up as a Federal Government on hours
    of service regulations. There used to be a little bit of an
    informal fudge factor with those because people kept log books
    and so on, but now with technology it enforce it and people
    like Snyder trucking in my area and others that are major
    logistics companies say that it may have some benefit in terms
    of fatigue and safety, but on the other hand it is costing our
    economy as their figures are coming in in this new thing
    billions of dollars in lost efficiency because of how it works.
        And so I am curious. If the concern is safety and fatigue,
    and if technology reduces the stress on a driver and have, in
    effect, less than full time, well, he is driving long distances
    and so on; if they have some of the new technology on board,
    would that provide an opportunity for us to modify some of
    these one size fits all hours of service rules to be related
    more to the capabilities of the vehicle?
        Is there some way we can have our cake and eat it, too,
    have greater safety and maintain efficiency?
        I mean we could have zero fatalities by just banning cars
    and trucks, but that is not the way to do it. The way to do it
    is to make it safer and more efficient, and the hours of
    service make it less efficient as it turns out, and
    considerably less. I mean, it is going to lower people's
    standards of living in the United States because that cost ends
    up being translated into higher prices for people who are
    already struggling.
        So it is not as though there is a free lunch in this world.
    I do not know if Mr. Strickland or anyone else would care to
    comment on that.
        Mr. Strickland. Certainly I will be happy to comment in
    part, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, in terms of the policy, the
    department and the specifics, it is better handled by the
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Administrator
    Ferro. She is a person who knows this issue song, chapter and
    verse and would be better suited to speak to the policy
    specifics.
        I can be happy to speak to the technological specifics,
    which is that there is always an interplay and an interflow of
    technology between the light-duty fleet and the heavy-duty
    fleet. So things such as crash and braking system, forward
    collision warning systems, lane keeping systems, and you know,
    electronic stability control for heavy-duty vehicles which we
    are working on as part of a rulemaking right now are all things
    that we see in the light-duty fleet which could flow to the
    trucking fleet, which would improve the margin of safety.
        You know, we do believe that a number of the issues that
    beset the everyday driver of a vehicle would also be able to
    improve the abilities and, frankly, the success and safety of a
    commercial driver as well. It is something that NHTSA is
    working on specifically, but how that may sort of have an
    opportunity to modify current policies to make sure in terms of
    driver's time of service and hours of service, that is a longer
    and larger policy question, and I would clearly have to defer
    to the agency of expertise.
        Mr. Petri. Yes, sir.
        Dr. Rajkumar. I would make three more points, Mr. Chairman.
    First, my understanding is that fuel is the biggest cost factor
    for the trucking industry. With automation and connected
    vehicle technologies, trucks could be driving closer to each
    other on the highways at a uniform speed that would save
    significant amounts of fuel.
        Secondly, those technologies will also allow trucks to
    drive safely, because they are taking driver distraction out of
    the equation.
        And thirdly, many insurance claims in the trucking industry
    are the result of accidents that happen in the loading dock.
    When somebody is trying to pull into the loading dock, they hit
    something. We can reduce those accidents as well with
    automation.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        One other thing struck me, and I do not know if Mr.
    Robinson would care to comment on it. Maybe other vehicle
    manufacturers provide this as well, but the technology is also
    helping to prevent theft and lower insurance costs in some
    regard, I guess. Onstar and others, you can call and they can
    turn your car off, and the police if they get your license
    number or whatever can call ahead and stop the car on the
    highway practically, as I understand it today, and that has to
    mean fewer auto thefts over time.
        Mr. Robinson. Yes, that is true, Mr. Chairman. We have that
    capability with Onstar. You know, the lesson in all of this as
    we are talking about these technologies is the interface
    between the technologies that have been developed separately,
    but they have a relationship to one another, and as we get to
    the V2V types of connectivity that Mr. Strickland and Mr.
    Steudle are talking about, I think it is just going to enhance
    all the more these systems that have been developed separately
    that enhance safety, but collectively are going to do an even
    greater job.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        One final thing for me, and that is that Mr. Christensen
    and earlier Mr. Robinson and I were talking a little bit about
    how this is going, and, Mr. Christensen, you seemed to indicate
    a little more I do not know if you would say optimism or pace
    by saying you have a target of 2020 for autonomous vehicles. Is
    that as opposed to a building block approach or is that at a
    certain benchmark in a building block approach, or what does an
    autonomous vehicle in 2020 type goal mean?
        We do not want to oversell that in 5 years or 10 years
    there is going to be this car that you tell it's Garmin where
    you want to go, and then you hop in the backseat and go to
    sleep and it drives you off to Chicago or something.
        Mr. Christensen. Yes, thank you, Chairman.
        So as I mentioned, our CEO set a very aggressive goal for
    2020 for this autonomous vehicle. Primarily by setting these
    ambitious goals, he feels that that is the best way to drive
    innovation.
        What exactly the vehicle potential is in 2020, honestly it
    has yet to be determined in terms of the exact capabilities and
    what will be available. We do completely agree that it is going
    to be a step-by-step approach. There will be features added to
    the vehicle, driver assistance features. The vehicle in a way
    you could say is partnering with the driver moving forward, but
    we feel that by 2020 we will have a vehicle that has some level
    of clear autonomous capability that is recognized by the
    driver.
        But, again, there is going to be this balance between what
    the technology is capable of and what the customer is willing
    to accept at that point. So our direction is to strive for the
    best that we can do, the greatest technology, the greatest
    performance, and balance that with the customer acceptance.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. My regrets that I have missed most of the
    testimony, but I will be interested in being briefed and
    reading the record.
        I met with some of you from GE. I understand that the auto
    manufacturers, of course, would be most logically developing or
    interested in developing this technology. Is this really
    practical?
        I asked if anyone had asked about the cost, and I
    understood that they had. Is this a practical way to approach
    the car of the future, or do you think that like--I do not
    know--electric cars or not electric cars, but hybrid cars, that
    the prices ultimately have come so that they are no longer out
    of reach?
        Mr. Christensen. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton.
        I can respond to that a little bit. As we move forward,
    would you let me know your question?
        Ms. Norton. Yes. I want to know if these cars and I
    understand that someone did ask about the price of the cars,
    and it was like $100,000.
        Mr. Christensen. Absolutely.
        Ms. Norton. So I am trying to find out with every kind of
    technology it costs a great deal in the beginning, and of
    course with more users the price goes down, and I am wondering
    how practical it is to even think about driverless cars given
    what the public expects to pay for a car.
        Mr. Christensen. So looking forward to 2020, we think that
    working with our suppliers, we found I will call it a glide
    path down to an affordable type technology for the certain
    types of scanners that we are looking at. This has been talked
    about for many years. Autonomous vehicles have been talked
    about, and there has been different methods or ways to achieve
    this in terms of implanting magnets in the road and having the
    vehicle follow that and what have you, but we are finally to
    the point that the sensor technology has the capability to
    provide that recognition that is necessary, and we see that it
    finally has that glide path down toward an affordable cost,
    that we should be able to achieve that by 2020. We can see the
    light at the end of the tunnel basically, that the cost will be
    affordable within the next 5 to 10 years.
        Mr. Robinson. The way I would answer your question,
    Congresswoman, is that we will get there in bites, and we will
    get there because we are providing value to the customer that
    they are willing to pay for as these steps are taken.
        An example would be that some of the sophisticated active
    safety systems we are talking about, whether it is adaptive
    cruise control or automatic braking, initially they would be on
    premium products. We are introducing those same features on a
    Chevrolet. The Chevrolet Impala has those features.
        Now, we probably could not have visualized that 5 years
    ago. So my expectation is that we will get there in steps. The
    technology will be introduced in steps when we get the cost at
    a level where the customer is prepared to pay for that value
    and sees that value for the money.
        Ms. Norton. Would it be easier to do this on electric cars
    than on cars that use every kind of fuel?
        Mr. Robinson. I do not think the propulsion system has as
    much to do with it as the technology reliability and durability
    itself, regardless of whether it is an electric car or a diesel
    driven car.
        Mr. Christensen. Yes, there are some advantages from a
    development standpoint, and we have used our Leaf as a
    development platform for autonomous vehicles because everything
    is already----
        Ms. Norton. Say that again. I am sorry. I did not hear you.
        Mr. Christensen. Our current Nissan Leaf, the electric
    vehicle, we have used that as our development platform. Being
    that it is an electric vehicle, everything on the vehicle in
    terms of the braking and acceleration is already electric. So
    it is an easy vehicle to adopt.
        But we see that the capability of autonomous vehicles can,
    as Mr. Robinson said, apply to any type of powertrain.
        Ms. Norton. Did you want to? Yes, sir.
        Dr. Rajkumar. Yes. The autonomous car at Carnegie Mellon is
    an internal combustion engine vehicle, so you can add the
    technology to that platform or to an electric vehicle. You need
    electric power to power the sensors, the computers, and the
    actuators. It is easier to do that with an electric vehicle,
    but it can be done on any platform.
        Ms. Norton. I see. Now, do I understand Google was also
    developing one of these autonomous vehicles? And what does that
    say about who is likely to be the leader in developing them?
        I mean, do you have to know something about cars in order
    to really do it?
        Mr. Strickland. Ranking Member, yes, Google is one of the
    nontraditional companies that is entering into the automotive
    space, specifically with the software package to enable a self-
    driving vehicle in certain modes.
        And I think what you will likely see, frankly, in a number
    of spaces, and clearly the manufacturers can speak for
    themselves, auto manufacturers are sort of less being seen as
    auto manufacturers and seen more as just broad technology
    companies. So you will be seeing the manufacturers, frankly,
    entering into other spaces regarding to telematics and
    electronics and these other issues, just like Google is putting
    their systems onto, I think they are using a Toyota platform.
        So you may see, frankly, other nontraditional companies in
    the manufacturing space in the future years to come as well,
    but clearly, that also speaks to the fact of what NHTSA's
    responsibility is as an agency for us to create a regulatory
    playing field that makes sure that any company that is entering
    the space is actually producing systems that are safe and
    reliable, both from electronics and from a performance
    standpoint.
        Ms. Norton. Is there any place in the world that is ready
    to actually use autonomous vehicles on the road?
        Mr. Strickland. From our work and analysis right now, there
    is no fully autonomous vehicle that is ready for mass
    commercialization. As Mr. Robinson and Mr. Christensen noted,
    each of the manufacturers actually are working on the building
    blocks now and active safety systems, and I think what you will
    see is an evolution of these technologies over the years as
    crashing and braking systems get better, as other sensors, lane
    keeping gets better and other, frankly, technological
    innovations, but you will see something approaching a car that
    is self-driving in certain modes of operation possibly in the
    future all the way to an automated vehicle.
        But at this point NHTSA is not aware of any, you know,
    vehicle that is fully ready for a commercialized use in a full
    autonomous mode.
        Ms. Norton. Now, the American manufacturers, and I should
    ask our American manufacturers, fell behind when hybrid cars
    came on the road. Where are our car manufacturers relative to
    the other manufacturers who sell very well in the United States
    on autonomous vehicles or is this an American thing?
        Mr. Robinson. Actually, Congresswoman, I think across the
    board, regardless of where their home base is, whether it is
    German companies, Japanese companies or U.S.-based companies,
    everybody is looking at these issues that I know of and have
    their own test programs.
        One of the things that we all have talked about is the need
    for flexibility because we think the marketplace will help
    determine the best technologies for the money. Customers have a
    great way of telling us what they want.
        Ms. Norton. What do you mean by ``flexibility''? I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Robinson. Not to prescribe a specific approach to
    solving an issue, for instance, whether it is a crash
    mitigation system or automated braking system or anything else
    that we have talked about.
        I think it is a great thing to have standard expectations
    in terms of performance, but let the market decide who has
    created the best mousetrap, if you will, to solve that problem
    at the best cost, and so we are all about the marketplace,
    winning in the marketplace, letting customers decide.
        I think the way NHTSA has laid out its framework or its
    outline for the future, I think, it provides for adaptability.
    It provides for flexibility in achieving these goals, and I
    think that is wise.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Strickland, do you agree with that
    approach? I mean, is that how you are approaching?
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely, Congresswoman. NHTSA has to
    basically do its work on performance standards because we
    cannot anticipate the next great innovation. If you pick a
    design standard, which is ``you have to build this particular
    car or this particular engine this particular way,'' you are,
    frankly, stifling the ability for some future improvement that
    you cannot anticipate.
        As I said, in an earlier question about this, the one
    evolution in the work in automated driving is performance
    standards work well in terms of how well a car avoids a crash,
    how much fuel a car should use, but when you are talking about
    electronics, where you are basically dealing with hundreds of
    thousands, millions of lines of code, being able to take in
    thousands of variables a second for the car that is essentially
    making a decision, we are likely going to have to move to
    something like a process standard. What is the way the
    manufacturers tested and developed their system to be able to
    take into account all of these things that we expect for proper
    roadway safety?
        And that is going to be a slight difference from what the
    agency has done in the past, but we think it is, again, what
    Mr. Robinson alluded to, an even-handed, balanced way to not
    stifle innovation, but have certain guarantees that there is
    going to be safe performance of all these systems.
        Ms. Norton. Yes. Build the car, and then we will learn what
    we have to do to regulate it.
        Mr. Strickland. Exactly right.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony
    and those who worked to prepare it.
        I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
    hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
    provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
    in writing, and unanimous consent that the record will remain
    open for 15 days for additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
    of today's hearing.
        If no one has any further comments or questions, this
    hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]